ADMITTED GAPS IN SCIENCE

[SMF]

I don't have the expertise to speculate on this topic. I am reading in Physics to learn. I have, however, been in many speculative discussions in my own area of scientific expertise and they were often boisterous and fun, but they always, always, involved experimental evidence, citations, and arguments regarding which explanation best explained the most phenomenon with the most economy. Scientific speculation without verifiable evidence is just story telling. SM

[DrRocket]

I've seen doctorates at school totally annihilate somewhat legitimate theses just because the poor PhD student couldn't account for one or two peaks in their spectroscopy. The science world is very cut-throat, as it has to be.

 

I have only seen that occur in one instance in which a student insisted in proceeding to the dissertation defense over the advice of his advisor -- essentially suicide. Under ordinary circumstances that sort of thing should be prevented by the advisor. Oddly, that one instance that I can recall occured in a chemistry department -- I think not far from you .

 

There was a potential for a similar incident in the Physics Department at the state university in the state in which I now live.. A baseless, and mathless, "theory of everything" was, and is, being promoted by a student with ties to the university president. There was no danger of a physics PhD being awarded for this, but the internal university politics were delicate. A thesis defense debacle was a possibility. Fortunately the student transferred to the Philosophy Department.

 

I have not seen the science world being "very cut-throat", only very rigorous. I can recall, shortly before I graduated, giving a talk at a special session of the Annual Meeting of the American Mathematical Society to a room full of "big-shots". They were very cordial. They were equally cordial when one interrupted another speaker, a faculty member at Purdue, and showed why what he was saying was wrong. That speaker was a bit embarrassed for the moment, but told me personally that the guy who revealed the error was absolutely correct. There was no animosity on the part of either of them, and I think they are cordial to this day. My dealings with both of them were also always cordial.

 

What might be interpreted as cut-throat is intolerance for wackos. That is something else entirely, something understandable and necessary since the internet has provided a soap box for purveyors of nonsense. That sort of intolerance, consistent with off-the-wall "theories' being relegated to "Speculations", is a good thing.

[swansont]

Dale is right.

Speculation on this Forum has a bad taste.

There is no way to support any speculation there, it is treaten as pseudoscience right from the beginning.

Speculation is out of any other science (as if it was impossible to speculate in science)

And right next to the waste basket.

 

But the Forum will not change policy. I suppose it is made on purpose because the Internet has plenty of rubbish and they want to differentiate.

 

On the other side, many interesting discussions lie under the speculation forum. Dale may get used to its bad taste.

 

This is a science site. As long as it is a science site, the only legitimate (IMO) direction to go is toward less tolerance of speculation. Members of the moderator/resident expert staff discuss this from time to time. It's a balance of what the staff want want to deal with and how much discussion there is. Some of us like debunking some the material that gets posted. Others among us want to shut discussions down much faster. The whole reason for its existence is so that the reader who lacks expertise does not confuse the discussion for accepted, verified science.

 

You're right that speculation doesn't get supported, but that's the fault of the proponents of the speculation, because they refuse to provide scientific evidence — there's no data or falsifiable tests and invariably no math. It's invariably word salad and usually shows an incredible deficiency in understanding basic scientific principles and vocabulary and the breadth and depth of experimentation that invariably falsifies these ideas.

 

The "bad taste" seems to come from the skepticism that scientists have. That there's a put-up-or-shut-up attitude rather than credulous groveling. I suspect that's why calls for evidence are so often taken as personal insults.

[mississippichem]

I have only seen that occur in one instance in which a student insisted in proceeding to the dissertation defense over the advice of his advisor -- essentially suicide. Under ordinary circumstances that sort of thing should be prevented by the advisor. Oddly, that one instance that I can recall occured in a chemistry department -- I think not far from you.

 

This student actually had a strong thesis, but chose to include a certain spectra that was not supportive of one of the facets of the thesis. No idea if it was against the opinion of the presiding PhD. I must say it was fairly obvious that that particular slide should have been omitted. That student was probably a victim of an over zealous professor (the guy I'm talking about is a known head knocker but a very smart guy), but that's what you get when you show up unprepared for a well prepared question.

 

When I said "cut-throat" I may have used too strong a term, but what appears to only be rigor to people in the science world may appear to be ruthless to outsiders. I was adding emphasis to the point that defense of a scientific idea is essentially a debate by nature, and should be so impersonal that it may appear cut-throat to some.

[DrRocket]

This is a science site. As long as it is a science site, the only legitimate (IMO) direction to go is toward less tolerance of speculation. Members of the moderator/resident expert staff discuss this from time to time. It's a balance of what the staff want want to deal with and how much discussion there is. Some of us like debunking some the material that gets posted. Others among us want to shut discussions down much faster. The whole reason for its existence is so that the reader who lacks expertise does not confuse the discussion for accepted, verified science.

 

You're right that speculation doesn't get supported, but that's the fault of the proponents of the speculation, because they refuse to provide scientific evidence — there's no data or falsifiable tests and invariably no math. It's invariably word salad and usually shows an incredible deficiency in understanding basic scientific principles and vocabulary and the breadth and depth of experimentation that invariably falsifies these ideas.

 

The "bad taste" seems to come from the skepticism that scientists have. That there's a put-up-or-shut-up attitude rather than credulous groveling. I suspect that's why calls for evidence are so often taken as personal insults.

 

Let's be blunt. The problem is not really speculation in the true sense.

 

Theoretical research, by its very nature is speculation, informed and responsible speculation. String theory, quantum loop gravity, and Lisi's E8 theory are all speculative. They ae also legitimate research avenues. Without speculation there would be no research, and no progress.

 

What is objectionable are the "relativity is wrong because it violates my intuition", "I don't understand quantum mechanics so it must be wrong" or "Faraday's law is wrong" diatribes which have zero basis in either theory or empirical data. In short "speculative' is being used as a euphemism for "wacko". Everybody understands this, even wackos. Uinderstandably, wackos do not like to be clearly identified. Gee, that's unfortunate.

 

The policy of limiting objectionable theories to the "Speculations" forum is appropriate and necessary. What is important is not what happens in "Speculations", but what, as a result, does not happen elsewhere.

 

I hope that you and other mods keep up the good work.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Let's be blunt. The problem is not really speculation in the true sense.

 

Theoretical research, by its very nature is speculation, informed and responsible speculation. String theory, quantum loop gravity, and Lisi's E8 theory are all speculative. They ae also legitimate research avenues. Without speculation there would be no research, and no progress.

 

What is objectionable are the "relativity is wrong because it violates my intuition", "I don't understand quantum mechanics so it must be wrong" or "Faraday's law is wrong" diatribes which have zero basis in either theory or empirical data. In short "speculative' is being used as a euphemism for "wacko". Everybody understands this, even wackos. Uinderstandably, wackos do not like to be clearly identified. Gee, that's unfortunate.

 

The policy of limiting objectionable theories to the "Speculations" forum is appropriate and necessary. What is important is not what happens in "Speculations", but what, as a result, does not happen elsewhere.

I hope that you and other mods keep up the good work.

 

 

 

All that said, there have been a few interesting threads in Speculations. There are also probably a few that could be good but unfortunately get overlooked due to the junk that gets deposited there and overall it is certainly worthwhile rather than just throw it all out entirely.

Edited March 21, 2011 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ophiolite]

But the "Name on the Door" is given as "Pseudoscientific or speculatory threads". Junk scientists, crackpots and jackasses enter here. Public welcome to come in and laugh at the funny monkeys. Not a welcome mat for guys who believe themselves to have tinker-toyed a theory straight up from solid brass tacks. Free dunce caps dispensed inside. Check scalp with infallible moderator of your choice. Alternate entry via trap door provided in place of expressed rebuttal logic dissing contributors above. Complimentary gags optional for non-celebrities. Trash Can waiting next floor down. Step carefully.

Dale, something you may find productive to reflect upon is that science is practiced by scientists. No, this is not a snide way of saying if you aren't a scientist what are you messing around for. On the contrary, scientists have one major weakness. They are also human. Consequently they are prone to react in human manner when they are outwith their normal operational framework.

 

I think we can agree that a science forum is not a normal operational framework for a scientist. At the very least a scientist on a forum will feel greater freedom to act as a human first and a scientist second, albeit subconsciously. How does this relate to your concerns?

 

A post like that above full of injured tone, snide asides and self righteous confidence is not the way to get a human to pay serious attention to your claims. If you can't get the attention of the human then, on a forum, you are unlikely to get the attention of the scientist.

 

I can't help thinking that you would have enjoyed a more positive response if your posts had been along lines like these: "I've been studying xyz for some time. It's an area that offers interesting possibilities for research since there are still many uncertainties of how abc occurs. I've developed some ideas I'd like to run past you and would welcome your input, positive or negative."

 

Now the end result may still have been the same, but now you could have greater confidence that it was because of a scientific rejection, not a human rejection.

[Marat]

At the foundation of modern empirical science at the start of the 17th century, Bacon listed a number of topics which the new, scientific and empirical method of investigation should set out to resolve, and many of those questions are those which were in fact explored over the next few centuries of the history of science. But among Bacon's questions were some which modern scientists might reject as pseudoscience, such as Bacon's asking 'Why is it that people who feel more lucky going into games of chance tend to be more successful at them?' These are genuine questions, and science should not be so scrupulous about weaving all data back into explanation in terms of established paradigms of theorizing that it refuses even to think about odd issues like these.

[SMF]

These are genuine questions, and science should not be so scrupulous about weaving all data back into explanation in terms of established paradigms of theorizing that it refuses even to think about odd issues like these.

 

Marat, do you have an example of this? Also, how did the question turn out, that is, is it still unanswered? SM

[swansont]

There's a big difference between speculating about an unanswered question, and speculating about a new approach to a largely answered one.

[DrRocket]

There's a big difference between speculating about an unanswered question, and speculating about a new approach to a largely answered one.

 

The first, when done by real scientists, is a speculation based on insight and vision.

 

The second is often a fantasy based on delusion and hallucination.

 

Caveat: When one is merely talking about a different approach but not disputing the validity of established science, as with Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics versus the standard Newtonian F=ma approach, then a new approach may have merit.

[steevey]

Scientists acknowledge some of the gaps in our understanding of the world or cosmos. For example, the relative rarity of lightning out on the high seas: http://www.science-f...19/sf019p10.htm

 

Who would like to kick that one around?

 

 

Well water moves very easily. When a thunder cloud is over land, the landmass isn't moving, so what happens is the like charges in the thunder cloud repel that charge which is in the land, and since the land doesn't move since its a solid, only the charge does, so once the like charge on land is pushed away, all that's left is a different net charge where lightning forms. I think this is called induction. But in water, the water molecules with like charges themselves can get easily pushed away while other water just moves in, so a difference in charge rarely really builds up.

 

 

[steevey]

Scientists acknowledge some of the gaps in our understanding of the world or cosmos. For example, the relative rarity of lightning out on the high seas: http://www.science-f...19/sf019p10.htm

 

Who would like to kick that one around?

 

 

Well water moves very easily. When a thunder cloud is over land, the landmass isn't moving, so what happens is the like charges in the thunder cloud repel that charge which is in the land, and since the land doesn't move since its a solid, only the charge moves away from the like charge in the thunder cloud, so once the like charge on land is pushed away, all that's left is a different net charge where lightning forms. I think this is called induction. But in water, the water molecules with like charges themselves can get easily pushed away while other water just moves in, so a difference in charge rarely really builds up.

Edited March 21, 2011 by steevey

[dalemiller]

So if a forum was called Biology and Physics, you would post no physics in that forum? Your logic is foolish and flawed.

 

To send a PM to a user click on their name and then "Send me a message"

 

!

Moderator Note

This is going way off topic and let me remind you that you agreed to our rules on signing up, I suggest you re-read them, read the speculations forum rules and go and have a read about the scientific method.

 

Thanks for the PM clue.

 

A wordless plunge into the pits leaves the faulted contributor with no idea what complaint is being lodged against him. It is not articulate enough to serve as a critique. A one-man judge, jury and executioner conveys an impression of dissatisfaction as he crushes the back of a skull, but to hear of such attack being proper substitute for confrontation with charges smacks of injustice. Meaningless generalities don't help. Freedom demands the telling of why. Not to tell why is inhuman.

 

Well water moves very easily.

Usually, well water has to be hauled up or pumped up or else it just stays down in there.

 

 

A post like that above full of injured tone, snide asides and self righteous confidence is not the way to get a human to pay serious attention to your claims. If you can't get the attention of the human then, on a forum, you are unlikely to get the attention of the scientist.

 

 

Thanks for the empathy.

 

Since that posting, I have noticed that the forum combines "Junk Science", really, and "Speculations"; not inadvertently, with from an intentional discouragement toward free-wheeling speculation. I had thought that they had goofed on the cruelty of that combination. Then, I had thought myself to be just expressing the feel we would all experience when hopes have been dashed down that trap door. I thought I was jesting about all of our lot. My hope remains that intelligent thinkers might look past the mockery to judge for themselves upon the validity I see in the issues I raised in the technical posting.

[Klaynos]

Science isn't about free wheeling speculations, if the universe disagrees with your speculation then it's not science.

[swansont]

Since that posting, I have noticed that the forum combines "Junk Science", really, and "Speculations"; not inadvertently, with from an intentional discouragement toward free-wheeling speculation. I had thought that they had goofed on the cruelty of that combination. Then, I had thought myself to be just expressing the feel we would all experience when hopes have been dashed down that trap door. I thought I was jesting about all of our lot. My hope remains that intelligent thinkers might look past the mockery to judge for themselves upon the validity I see in the issues I raised in the technical posting.

 

The issue comes up for discussion every now and then; the problem is that there are so many cranks who shriek like little girls who have dropped their ice cream cone when their treatise is moved to speculation for not including any evidence or math, or without mention of how it could be falsified, i.e. the things that make science science. One can only imagine the hissy fit if we were to actually classify those posts as "junk science" or something similar. It's not worth the hassle.

[CaptainPanic]

The issue comes up for discussion every now and then; the problem is that there are so many cranks who shriek like little girls who have dropped their ice cream cone when their treatise is moved to speculation for not including any evidence or math, or without mention of how it could be falsified, i.e. the things that make science science. One can only imagine the hissy fit if we were to actually classify those posts as "junk science" or something similar. It's not worth the hassle.

In addition, there is in fact another category for the real junk: the delete button.

But for obvious reasons, those threads don't get a lot of attention.

[swansont]

In addition, there is in fact another category for the real junk: the delete button.

But for obvious reasons, those threads don't get a lot of attention.

 

We don't delete posts, though, unless they are spam/porn or the rare post that is otherwise unsalvageable (e.g. flaming diatribes).

[36grit]

I don't mind being considered a wacko. A quick look at history and I can see I'm in good company. The brain has two sides, a logical side and a creative side. Together they dance. A wise theorist will tweak and probe the scientists for validity. Constructive critisim should always be welcomed. The wise scientist will weigh and divide the hypothisis of artists who's ideas seem to fill gaps in knowledge and understanding.

Things posted in the speculations forum which bear no or little critisim, that seem to fill a void or more especially voids, in our current understanding, should be investigated by the more inquisistive minds of serious reserchers and scientists with nothing better to do.

I think any good hypothesis, (once read) will sooner or later become very hard to ignore.

With a handfull of questions and comments, and some research and terminolgy, I have pretty much answered all the questions and things that used to bug me. I have filled the gaps. My model of the universe, and how and why, are very neat and complete in my own head. I'm quite sure that as knowledge progresses that everybody else will find someting pretty close to the model that I have on hand. But then again, I'm just another wacko being sent down the hallway to the speculations forum. That's just where I belong I guess. Who else is going to tell you why everything is mathamatically coherent? Just get on down the hall, nobody will hear it soon enough.