ridicule is not good science

[Widdekind]

In 340 b.c., Greek philosopher Heraclides proposed, that our planet spins. The idea was dismissed for nearly 2,000 years, on the grounds, that "If Earth rotated [then] a person jumping up would land in a different spot" (Astronomy 2010).

 

Two millennia were lost, to ridicule, being allowed to trump sound-and-sane science (cp. 'delay is death' -- Czar Peter I). The concept of "relative motion" could easily have been demonstrated, cp. Hypatia, head of the Library of Alexandria, in the docu-drama Agora.

[swansont]

Relative motion had not been established, and neither had the scientific method. Applying the accepted principle of absolute motion is not ridicule, it's reasoning. Flawed reasoning, to be sure, but we have the benefit of hindsight. All data are interpreted within the framework of the accepted models of the day.

 

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/7753

[michel123456]

Yes we lost 2000 years.

The concept of the steam engine was set up in first century AD (maybe 100 years earlier following Vitruvius De architectura).

It is not ridicule, it is tragic.

Edited November 13, 2011 by michel123456

[mooeypoo]

No, it's progress. We didn't "lose" these things. They contributed in their own time to produce progress, and when we were ready to either use them or develop them or test them properly, we did so.

 

Part of that reason is why we developed the scientific method -- so that we have a more reliable method of testing ideas than "simply" the "ridicule" or "perception" or the public. That, too, is progress.

 

~mooey

[Phi for All]

I get the feeling this is in response to some idea that was ruthlessly shot down for lack of evidence or methodology. If your definition of "ridicule" includes refuting wild speculation that has no predictive power, then how much more time is lost by chasing down every unsupported "theory" that comes from "outside the box"? The scientific method works best when it is followed, not leaped over.

 

Right now, we're navigating some of the most dangerous technical waters of our short existence as a species. With the discovery of fission, our ability to destroy increased exponentially. I feel we have done well so far in recognizing the futility in mutually assured destruction. Imagine if we had discovered nuclear weaponry 500 years ago, because early philosophers discovered relative motion and later scientists in the first century AD found practical applications for the steam engine. Would we still be here to discuss this? This type of speculation works both ways, you know.

[michel123456]

No, it's progress. We didn't "lose" these things. They contributed in their own time to produce progress, and when we were ready to either use them or develop them or test them properly, we did so.

 

Part of that reason is why we developed the scientific method -- so that we have a more reliable method of testing ideas than "simply" the "ridicule" or "perception" or the public. That, too, is progress.

 

~mooey

 

O.k. lets say we lost only 1500 years.

That is till Renaissance where some people rediscovered ancient manuscripts.

You must know that Leonardo's Vitruvian Man is a drawing of a description caught from Vitruvius De architectura, the same book presenting the steam engine and many other ancient inventions.

 

There is no excuse for losing so much time. The history of humanity is full of mistakes.*

 

* I have to check for a quote from Adenauer IIRC.

 

here it is

“History is the sum total of things that could have been avoided.” Konrad Adenauer quotes (German Statesman He was the first Chancellor of Federal Republic of West Germany, 1876-1967)

Edited November 13, 2011 by michel123456

[iNow]

The essence of your argument is perhaps what is most troubling, even though I don't think you realize how critical it is. You're willing to allow a significant increase in false positives (bad ideas, taken as true, leading later to unnecessary pain and futility) for the small benefit of a tiny handful of good ideas making it through the process more quickly and without the need for the critical scrutiny currently subjected.

 

Your intentions are good, I know that. You want the good ideas to get more prolific more quickly and without many delays so society itself can advance sooner and more ably. That is a noble cause. The challenge, of course, is this alternative approach will simultaneously allow unimpeded passage to the countless billions of bad ideas out there being proposed in parallel to the good ones. So, when we move past your idealistic, noble, and overall good intentions with this idea, we quickly see that it comes replete with unintended consequences and ultimately fails when put into practice.

 

Also, I have to say I reject one of your assertions. It is nonsequitur to argue that it's ridicule which is the primary obstacle to implementation of a good idea. More often, it's a lack of funding or the inability of it's creator to adequately articulate it's effect and potential.

[mooeypoo]

Don't get me wrong, I agree that there have been periods in our history where discoveries were overlooked -- discoveries that would, very likely, have been revolutionary. I actually thought of writing a short story, a kind of "what if" scenario, of what if those discoveries were *not* ignored, and where would the human development be today.

 

But I think that thinking we'd be ahead a thousand years, or even a hundred, is over simplifying history. The reason these discoveries weren't used isn't just because they were "ridiculed". There were a lot of other dicoveries that were ridiculed but when they were demonstrated to actually work, the ridicule was meaningless. There are a lot of factors that affected a lot of those discoveries. In many of them, the *ideas* were in the right *direction* but not quite finalized in the right way, which made them not work, and not catch. It took us a while longer -- to figure other things out, to discover other ways, etc -- to go back to the initial ideas and refine them and make them work.

 

In that sense, the scientific method is supposed to help us avoid 'skipping' good ideas, while keeping us focused rather than jump on any new invention that comes along even if it has no basis in reality, just because it sounds good.

 

~mooey

 

Also, I have to say I reject one of your assertions. It is nonsequitur to argue that it's ridicule which is the primary obstacle to implementation of a good idea. More often, it's a lack of funding or the inability of it's creator to adequately articulate it's effect and potential.

 

As often happens, you summarized the point I was trying to make at the end of my post. Agree 100%.

[swansont]

I would widen the net in this argument. It's not ridicule, it's adherence to ideology that has impeded progress and impedes it to this day. The scientific method, though, has given progress a weapon.

[Appolinaria]

If something is not effective universally, it is not a Law of Nature, and cannot be used to dismiss another idea. Our lack of knowledge about something is no grounds for dismissing another idea. This is more flawed to me than the original implication. What is an accidental generalization, and what is a law? The two are different, and only the latter is grounds for dismissal of an idea.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Appolinaria

[Phi for All]

If something is not effective universally, it is not a Law of Nature, and cannot be used to dismiss another idea. Our lack of knowledge about something is no grounds for dismissing another idea. This is more flawed to me than the original implication. What is an accidental generalization, and what is a law? The two are different, and only the latter is grounds for dismissal of an idea.

Don't conflate refutation with dismissal. If an idea is flawed, it is refuted, not dismissed. Fix the flaws to make it better, resubmit it. If it is refuted again, it will be for different reasons and still will not be dismissed, merely refuted again.

 

Often in our discussions, an idea is refuted and the author continues to argue instead of fixing the problems with his/her idea. This can look like we're being dismissive.

[Appolinaria]

Yes, but you cannot refute the rotation of earth without substantial knowledge. Absolute motion is not substantial since relativity was proven. Therefore, the example in the original post was dismissed, not refuted.

 

 

[Phi for All]

Yes, but you cannot refute the rotation of earth without substantial knowledge. Absolute motion is not substantial since relativity was proven. Therefore, the example in the original post was dismissed, not refuted.

As was pointed out earlier, Heraclides had the misfortune to be born in an age before the adoption of the scientific method. My observation was meant to be relevant to our era, not his.

[michel123456]

Yeap. Heraclides was posting in the Speculation Forum, next to the trash can.

[Appolinaria]

Haha.

[John Cuthber]

You can go quite a long way towards proving that the earth rotates with a tree, a rock and some string.

 

What would you have made a practical stream engine from 2000 years ago?

 

Unless there's a valid answer to that then you can't say we "lost" it.

 

It is vital for the advancement of science that we ensure that people understand how to tell valid ideas from nonsense.

Ridiculing the nonsense is a way to bring attention to the difference in a way that will attract people's attention and therefore encourage them to learn the difference.

As an example I cite "intelligent design" as something that pretends to be science, but isn't and the Flying Spaghetti monster (BBHNA) as a way to ridicule it while exposing it's fraudulent nature.

[Appolinaria]

You can go quite a long way towards proving that the earth rotates with a tree, a rock and some string.

 

What would you have made a practical stream engine from 2000 years ago?

 

Unless there's a valid answer to that then you can't say we "lost" it.

 

It is vital for the advancement of science that we ensure that people understand how to tell valid ideas from nonsense.

Ridiculing the nonsense is a way to bring attention to the difference in a way that will attract people's attention and therefore encourage them to learn the difference.

As an example I cite "intelligent design" as something that pretends to be science, but isn't and the Flying Spaghetti monster (BBHNA) as a way to ridicule it while exposing it's fraudulent nature.

 

But there is nothing that proves a creator doesn't exist. Tainting a possible explanation with a biased opinion is illogical.

[Phi for All]

It is vital for the advancement of science that we ensure that people understand how to tell valid ideas from nonsense.

I would hope that the argument posed in the OP doesn't cover things which can be easily refuted, such as intelligent design. I've never seen an ID proponent successfully rebut a competent falsification.

 

I can understand that some refutation seems like ridicule, and I can appreciate that there have been some discoveries that met with derision early on. It's easy in hindsight to claim ridicule, but when you place those discoveries in their proper time, with the proper state of that time's accepted science, it's easier to see why they never gained consensus.

 

What John Cuthber says here is important. It's not about stifling free-thinkers, and it's not about overly rigid approaches. It's about a method of discerning what has merit and what doesn't. Some ideas are just a square peg trying to fit a triangular hole, and it's easy to see that no amount of refinement will make it fit better than the triangular peg that's already there.

 

But there is nothing that proves a creator doesn't exist. Tainting a possible explanation with a biased opinion is illogical.

This is the physics section. Religion is not something that can be physically measured or observed.

[Appolinaria]

Uncertainty doesn't mean non-existence.

[MigL]

Not that I believe in ID,but Appolinaria is correct. We have historically called whatever is beyond our comprehension, either religion or magic. Only after having understood a phenomenon, do we then classify it as science.

Religion may, at some point, or may not be physically measured or observed.

[Phi for All]

I didn't mean to say religion, but rather the focus of religions, the deities that defy observation. Those are outside the natural, observable world that science is interested in explaining.

 

We can't discuss religion in this section or these posts will be removed or split off.

[Appolinaria]

I blame it on Cuthber.

 

I'm expressing (IMO, valid) neutral points... others are using religion as an example. I just responded.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Appolinaria

[Mystery111]

Not that I believe in ID,but Appolinaria is correct. We have historically called whatever is beyond our comprehension, either religion or magic. Only after having understood a phenomenon, do we then classify it as science.

Religion may, at some point, or may not be physically measured or observed.

 

 

Yes...loosely agreed.

[Appolinaria]

The point I am trying to make has absolutely nothing to do with religion. The inability of observation does not mean something doesn't exist. I like the following example;

"Consider the unrestricted generalization that all gold spheres are less than one mile in diameter. There are no gold spheres that size and in all likelihood there never will be, but this is still not a law..."

 

"All gold spheres are less than a mile in diameter.

All uranium spheres are less than a mile in diameter."

"Though the former is not a law, the latter arguably is. The latter is not nearly so accidental as the first, since uranium's critical mass is such as to guarantee that such a large sphere will never exist (van Fraassen 1989, 27)."

[mooeypoo]

But there is nothing that proves a creator doesn't exist. Tainting a possible explanation with a biased opinion is illogical.

 

I'm not sure I understand the logic here. There's nothing that proves pink unicorns with lipgloss don't exist either. If you don't have some sort of initial suspicion you can base your arguments on *why* start searching for them, it seems kinda silly to, no?

 

The scientific method is meant to untaint explanations by making them not based on opinion, but rather on fact. It doesn't matter if you believe the chupakabra exists or not, or if there is life on mars, or if aliens can be silicon-based. Your opinions are your own. If you want to pursue any question scientifically, you must base it on some form of evidence to form a hypothesis and plan how to pursue proper explanation for the phenomenon.

 

~mooey