Crackpottery

[Appolinaria]

1325557608[/url]' post='648390']

I'm saying that the PhD is the necessary specialized training. Sorry, I think we had a communication lapse there.

 

Well, I absolutely, 100% disagree with you.

[mississippichem]

Well, I absolutely, 100% disagree with you.

 

It's okay. Being wrong isn't against the forum rules .

 

Name one amateur who contributed significantly to the state of modern physical science within the last thirty years. Better yet, try fifty years. This is a safe bet for me, I assure you.

Edited January 3, 2012 by mississippichem

[md65536]

Name one amateur who contributed significantly to the state of modern physical science within the last thirty years. Better yet, try fifty years. This is a safe bet for me, I assure you.

A safe bet? How do you expect to collect on it? Wait forever? Or until the end of amateurs? Or do you expect an end to "sound fundamental discoveries"?

 

It's an easy statement to make, because you can keep repeating it without anyone to prove you're wrong, right up until (if/when) it happens or you die first.

 

It's not the first time in history that scientists had low expectations of what discoveries awaited and who would make them. I think it's a detrimental attitude, because it discourages people from trying. Anyone can be a scientist, anyone who does science, including kids experimenting at home or entering science fairs. Anyone can make a discovery. There's not "nothing new" left out there, and we don't know "most of everything big" yet.

 

I agree that the chances of an amateur making a big discovery in any given time frame (say, the next year, or decade) may be small and getting smaller, but what is the probability that it will never happen ever in the entirety of the possible future? That must be close to zero.

 

---

 

I also think it's telling that a thread on crackpottery with a description "You don't want to be that guy" ends up stuck on the topic of amateurs, as if they're the same thing. Every scientist starts off as an amateur, and if amateurs are treated with the same disdain and low expectations that the worst of the crackpots have earned for themselves, then why would anyone want to get interested in science?

 

 

 

 

Addendum: Asking "how many years since an important amateur physics discovery" might be like asking "how many years since a maximum global warming temperature" in concluding that either has stopped. Nevertheless I didn't find any recent examples with a quick look, but I did find this: http://www.builtonfa...teur-physicist/ I think it (and the first comment within) is interesting and applicable, and useful for would-be (but shouldn't-be) crackpots.

Edited January 3, 2012 by md65536

[Appolinaria]

1325558183[/url]' post='648395']

 

It's okay. Being wrong isn't against the forum rules .

 

Name one amateur who contributed significantly to the state of modern physical science within the last thirty years. Better yet, try fifty years. This is a safe bet for me, I assure you.

 

Charles J. Pedersen.

[zapatos]

Here is an article about some amateurs, including John Kanzius, doing well.

 

 

John Kanzius

ERIE, Pennsylvania

 

Using his wife’s pie pans and a couple of hot dogs, John Kanzius, 64, a retired business owner and radio technician, may have discovered a new treatment for some cancers. When nanoparti­cles made from gold are injected into tumors, they attach to cancer cells. The Kanzius RF Machine transmits focused radio waves to these nanoparticles, which respond by releasing heat and incinerating infected cells while leaving the surrounding healthy cells intact.

 

Kanzius’s research was inspired by his own struggle with chemo­therapy treatments in 2003 and 2004 while battling leukemia. In 2005 his work gained the attention of the prestigious cancer research centers at the University of Pittsburgh and the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Both facilities are now testing the treatment on animals. So far, tests have successfully destroyed localized tumors known as hepatic VX2 carcinomas in rabbits.

 

 

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/19-the-amateur-scientists-who-might-cure-cancer-from-their-basements

[StringJunky]

I'm saying that the PhD is the necessary specialized training. Sorry, I think we had a communication lapse there.

 

John Freeman Dyson didn't have a PhD...he got a BA.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

Edited January 3, 2012 by StringJunky

[ajb]

John Freeman Dyson didn't have a PhD...he got a BA.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

 

 

This example, although a good one, is from the 1950's. Dyson become a professor at Cornell University in 1951.

[StringJunky]

This example, although a good one, is from the 1950's. Dyson become a professor at Cornell University in 1951.

 

10 years out from what Mississippichem set admittedly, but what he achieved was way out of proportion to what could be expected from his qualifications that he formally trained for though wasn't it? When you think about it I bet there aren't or weren't many physics professors, and historically notable ones at that, with just BA's.

 

I would set the bar at Bachelor's, not PhD, as the minimum for potentially presenting noteworthy work because graduates do read peer-reviewed papers don't they and so should be aware of of the required standard..they just need to come up with an innovative idea to write about.

Edited January 3, 2012 by StringJunky

[Appolinaria]

Simon van der Meer.

Jack Kilby.

 

The percentage of those who have won Nobels sans PhD is significant enough.

[ydoaPs]

Simon van der Meer.

Jack Kilby.

 

The percentage of those who have won Nobels sans PhD is significant enough.

When was the last one?

[doG]

When was the last one?

Didn't Dr. Barack Hussein Obama get one?

[Appolinaria]

1325608329[/url]' post='648526']

When was the last one?

 

The last Nobel in science to someone without a PhD?

[ydoaPs]

The last Nobel in science to someone without a PhD?

Yes.

[Appolinaria]

1325608613[/url]' post='648527']

Didn't Dr. Barack Hussein Obama get one?

 

Yeah, a Peace Prize. That's not a physical science. I'm sure most of the people who win that don't have PhD's.

 

1325608714[/url]' post='648530']

Yes.

 

I think Yves Chauvin in 2005, although it was for work in the 70's.

[ajb]

I would set the bar at Bachelor's, not PhD, as the minimum for potentially presenting noteworthy work because graduates do read peer-reviewed papers don't they and so should be aware of of the required standard..they just need to come up with an innovative idea to write about.

 

In my experience undergraduate students in physics will not read many papers. Most up to date research papers will not exactly be accessible to undergraduates. The first research papers I read were part of my final year thesis and these were very hard for me to follow. Not much has changed on that front really, most papers I browse through I find hard to follow.

 

It is very debatable as if a standard undergraduate degree will prepare you for research. I would have to say undergraduate degrees do not prepare you enough, that is why we have a PhD scheme.

 

Anyway, I would not say that an "amateur" or a person with just an undergraduate degree is a crackpot, nor can we really say that someone with a PhD is not a crackpot. It is rather the way they approach their work that defines this, not qualifications.

Edited January 3, 2012 by ajb

[zapatos]

In my experience undergraduate students in physics will not read many papers. Most up to date research papers will not exactly be accessible to undergraduates. The first research papers I read were part of my final year thesis and these were very hard for me to follow. Not much has changed on that front really, most papers I browse through I find hard to follow.

 

It is very debatable as if a standard undergraduate degree will prepare you for research. I would have to say undergraduate degrees do not prepare you enough, that is why we have a PhD scheme.

 

Anyway, I would not say that an "amateur" or a person with just an undergraduate degree is a crackpot, nor can we really say that someone with a PhD is not a crackpot. It is rather the way they approach their work that defines this, not qualifications.

Looking at some of the 'amateurs' who have been successful, it was not just their undergraduate studies that made them successful. It was a combination of undergraduate studies and work experience. I'm sure that right out of the blocks a person with a PhD will be much better prepared to contribute to science than a person with a BS. However, a person with a BS, 10 years of experience, and a desire to do research can be quite successful.

[mississippichem]

Or do you expect an end to "sound fundamental discoveries"?

 

By amateurs...yes.

 

It's an easy statement to make, because you can keep repeating it without anyone to prove you're wrong, right up until (if/when) it happens or you die first.

 

Most correct statements that are backed by decades of record are easy to make. So you saying that my statement is fallacious because no one can offer evidence to the contrary? It is falsifiable, attempts have sense been made.

 

It's not the first time in history that scientists had low expectations of what discoveries awaited and who would make them. I think it's a detrimental attitude, because it discourages people from trying. Anyone can be a scientist, anyone who does science, including kids experimenting at home or entering science fairs. Anyone can make a discovery. There's not "nothing new" left out there, and we don't know "most of everything big" yet.

 

I agree that the chances of an amateur making a big discovery in any given time frame (say, the next year, or decade) may be small and getting smaller, but what is the probability that it will never happen ever in the entirety of the possible future? That must be close to zero.

 

Point taken. However, can we not make a similar statement about any not yet observed phenomenon? The tooth fairy is, as of today, still unobserved. Does that negate her existence?

 

I also think it's telling that a thread on crackpottery with a description "You don't want to be that guy" ends up stuck on the topic of amateurs, as if they're the same thing. Every scientist starts off as an amateur, and if amateurs are treated with the same disdain and low expectations that the worst of the crackpots have earned for themselves, then why would anyone want to get interested in science?

 

I agree here. The problem is when amateurs think they have the necessary knowledge to tangle with and topple the work of thousands of experts. Are there any fields where contributions from amateurs are as good as those of experts? If there is such a discipline, I want no part of it.

 

Addendum: Asking "how many years since an important amateur physics discovery" might be like asking "how many years since a maximum global warming temperature" in concluding that either has stopped.

 

That is sound logic assuming all other things equal. However, they are not. My assertion that the field of physical science has become too technical for the serious pursuits of amateurs has explanatory power where as denying the existence of climate change does not.

 

Denying climate change requires ignoring a mountain of evidence. What mountain have I ignored?

 

Charles J. Pedersen.

 

I thought of Pedersen as soon as I posted. He had a master's degree and was most definitely not an amateur but a seasoned professional (and one of my heroes at that). Given, I did specify "PhD" specifically so you do get some cred for that.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________

 

**To the amateurs of the forum:

 

Please don't take my words as insulting. Even the most educated among us were once amateurs. However, I refuse to accept the notion that a rigorous education in the physical sciences and mathematics doesn't offer a supreme advantage. I have part of said pedigree though (BS chemistry, PhD candidacy soon hopefully) so perhaps I have some personal bias. I admit to this bias and hold that it is marginal to the outcome.

 

 

***To the one who gave me the neg-rep above in post #27:

 

Was it the dry humor or the demand for evidence (In a science forum have you) that moved you to do such? No need to answer, just please take a moment to reflect.

[StringJunky]

By amateurs...yes.

 

Given the ever-increasing ubiquity of the internet globally and the information that it holds do you not think that the chances of very intelligent amateur autodidacts making significant scientific/ mathematical discoveries/conclusions will become an increasing possibility? It's a meta-researcher's paradise isn't it?

[mississippichem]

Given the ever-increasing ubiquity of the internet globally and the information that it holds do you not think that the chances of very intelligent amateur autodidacts making significant scientific/ mathematical discoveries/conclusions will become an increasing possibility? It's a meta-researcher's paradise isn't it?

 

That is a very interesting point, and one I honestly haven't considered.

 

It is possible. I don't think this will occur in the current internet environment though for several reasons:

 

The educational content on the internet is not structured in such a way as to lend itself to formal education, for now anyway. One can definitely learn A LOT on the internet. However, the truly in depth resources are often only available through either pay only or University attendance/employment. Online journals serve as a demonstrative example, almost no one can personally afford them out of pocket but people affiliated with research universities and businesses often have access to them. Things like ArXiv are becoming more popular and more accepted though so maybe there will be a change in this culture. I would like to see that very much. I really like things like the "MIT open courseware" videos, those are great for our society.

 

The second reason is even more cultural than the first. People who have been through the trial by fire in academia are not so willing to endorse those who have not been through the same scrutiny. The university system comes in with built in accountability. That's not to say their aren't quacks out there with PhD's, there are. But it just means that at some point those quacks probably participated in legitimate scientific research and fell off the wagon at some later time.

 

Science is in general very specialized these days. Some people spend their entire life's work on some small facet of some obscure project. I find it hard to imagine people in the near future being able to achieve that degree of specialization and expertise outside the classroom and that is the bulk of my argument. Perhaps the conditions will change in some unimagined way in the future, it is most certainly possible. All I can do now, and still be honest, is extrapolate the current condition into the future. Anything else would be wild speculation unless there is some known trend I'm unaware of. It will certainly be interesting to see though

[ajb]

Given the ever-increasing ubiquity of the internet globally and the information that it holds do you not think that the chances of very intelligent amateur autodidacts making significant scientific/ mathematical discoveries/conclusions will become an increasing possibility? It's a meta-researcher's paradise isn't it?

 

 

You would thinks so, online books are available, we have the arXiv and open access journals, blogs, forums, even Wikipedia. Yet I don't think there is much evidence that "amateurs" and "quacks" are making such contributions today. Talking to mathematics professors that do get quite a lot of emails for crackpots, they seem amazed at some of the ignorance. Things are much more accessible today, largely due to the internet, yet people are unwilling to put the effort in getting up to speed with modern thinking.

 

I would like to be proved wrong on this and see lots more people make real contributions to science.

[StringJunky]

You would thinks so, online books are available, we have the arXiv and open access journals, blogs, forums, even Wikipedia. Yet I don't think there is much evidence that "amateurs" and "quacks" are making such contributions today. Talking to mathematics professors that do get quite a lot of emails for crackpots, they seem amazed at some of the ignorance. Things are much more accessible today, largely due to the internet, yet people are unwilling to put the effort in getting up to speed with modern thinking.

 

I would like to be proved wrong on this and see lots more people make real contributions to science.

 

I think the internet is still way too young a phenomenon for this to happen yet and so are the people that may do this...they are still children. Also, the internet has not yet reached consumer saturation globally.

 

As an aside, I found this site, whilst looking for something else, which might be a reference to some open-access reviewed research articles which might appeal to some here. The mission-statement of this site is to facilitate the free dissemination of scientific research articles to the general public.

 

http://www.plosone.org/home.action

Edited January 5, 2012 by StringJunky

[Appolinaria]

1325756024[/url]' post='648952']

You would thinks so, online books are available, we have the arXiv and open access journals, blogs, forums, even Wikipedia. Yet I don't think there is much evidence that "amateurs" and "quacks" are making such contributions today. Talking to mathematics professors that do get quite a lot of emails for crackpots, they seem amazed at some of the ignorance. Things are much more accessible today, largely due to the internet, yet people are unwilling to put the effort in getting up to speed with modern thinking.

 

I would like to be proved wrong on this and see lots more people make real contributions to science.

 

I find it intriguing that the threat of crackpots surpasses the boundaries of a forum... Been there, done that, in another thread- yes crackpots are a danger, yes we must eliminate them immediately, yes we must use the repetitive tactic of mentioning either the spaghetti monster, ID, unicorns, a rainbow colored beaver wearing a tutu, zebras wearing mascara, mountain goats singing Elton John.... I get it.

I think it's honorable how much time the mods put in to keeping the quality of the forum high, responding to every post fairly, etc... But I really don't see the huge threat of crackpots (I think the greatest blow to science by crackpots is how much time you geniuses spend discussing them) . Usually their ideas are blatantly absurd to even a dimwit member like myself, if not, their errors can easily be pointed out by an expert.... And we can move on.

Anyway, I think this thread is great. Good job, Swanson. It's a guideline to prevent those who are genuinely not crackpots from being percieved as such. It's actually very kind.

[md65536]

Most correct statements that are backed by decades of record are easy to make. So you saying that my statement is fallacious because no one can offer evidence to the contrary? It is falsifiable, attempts have sense been made.

No, I don't think the statement's false, just that it's a bad bet (because you probably couldn't collect, and it's pessimistic).

But I now realize that my reasoning for this is similar to the argument that atheism is "a bad bet", with which I don't agree.

 

I think this is directly applicable: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/what-is-epsilon/

In this case, I think a more interesting question is: How long of a period do you think it would take such that the probability of an amateur making a fundamental discovery sometime during that period is 50%? Would you think it is some high number of centuries, or actually infinity?

 

 

I'm a crackpot, and I believe the answer is "1 year"... but I realize that I would change my answer after a few years without any discoveries, even though the probability shouldn't change much over time.

 

Also, in considering the idea in detail, there's a lot left up to interpretation that changes my estimates from "approaching 0" all the way to "approaching 1". For example, if the question is if an amateur will have "a significant idea", it must be close to 1 (or within decades). If we mean that a complete novice will have an idea and develop it properly, alone, all the way through to a finished accepted theory while remaining an amateur, it might be close to 0 (perhaps not for many millennia).

 

What I'm most expecting to happen, sometime in the lifetime of the human race, is that a novice will have an idea that compels them to learn and develop a "fundamentally important" theory properly, but by the end they may no longer be an amateur, and I'm certain that their idea will evolve enough that while the theory may still express the original idea, the idea won't be detailed enough to be called "the same as" the final theory.

[ajb]

I wrote an entry on my blog talking about amateurs in theoretical physics and mathematics. It maybe of interest and can be found here.