Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?

[John Cuthber]

"What about considering studies that were suggesting a causation of smoking with cancer being squashed by influential scientists (funded by the smoking industry) as a mere correlation? "

Er, what's your point here?

The relationship between cancer and smoking has been found out in spite of vast sums of money from the tobacco industry trying to silence it.

Most countries now have fairly strict laws about where you can smoke.

 

" Council for Tobacco Research" are nicknamed "the flat earth society" for their refusal to accept the bleeding obvious. Nobody takes them seriously.

[jimmydasaint]

"What about considering studies that were suggesting a causation of smoking with cancer being squashed by influential scientists (funded by the smoking industry) as a mere correlation? "

Er, what's your point here?

The relationship between cancer and smoking has been found out in spite of vast sums of money from the tobacco industry trying to silence it.

Most countries now have fairly strict laws about where you can smoke.

 

" Council for Tobacco Research" are nicknamed "the flat earth society" for their refusal to accept the bleeding obvious. Nobody takes them seriously.

 

My point here was that scientific building of objective evidence and also causal relationships could easily be swept aside for political and economic expediency, even by fellow scientists. The work of scientists showing a direct causal relationship of cigarette components and cancer in laboratory animals was suppressed or minimised by commercial interests and, which is worse, by prominent scientists, who were in the pockets of the industry. I don't know how the cigarette industry was exposed but, if we believe Hollywood, it was Dr Wigand's appearance on 60 minutes which gave life to the causal relationship between cigarette smoking and its deleterious effects.

 

Wigand

 

Unfortunately for the tobacco industry, the results of these early studies were discouraging. As we discuss in the following chapters, by the 1960s BAT scientists had concluded that nicotine is addictive and company-sponsored laboratory tests showed that components of tobacco smoke cause cancer in animals. The company responded to these findings at first by attempting to create a "safe" cigarette, although it publicly maintained that cigarettes had not been proven dangerous to health. When the scientists had concluded that they would not be able to create a "safe" cigarette, the company retreated behind a stone wall of denial, where it remains to this day.

 

The Council For Tobacco Research

The same memo {2205.01} that discussed the "tar derby" also discussed another public relations strategy adopted by the tobacco industry during the 1950sthe sponsorship of supposedly independent scientific research. (The memo, written in 1976 by Ernest Pepples, describes the industry's response to the "cigarette/health controversy" over time. As stated above, other aspects of this memo are discussed in detail in chapter 7.) This strategy allowed the tobacco industry to claim that there was a "controversy" over the effects of smoking and that more research was needed to resolve the debate.

 

Pepples notes that, besides producing filter and low-tar cigarettes, the industry reacted to the evidence linking its products to various diseases by supporting scientific research. The purpose of this research was "to refute unfavorable findings or at a minimum to keep the scientific question open" {2205.01, p. 1}. In addition, Pepples states:

 

The significant expenditures on the question of smoking and health have allowed the industry to take a respectable stand along the following linesAfter millions of dollars and over twenty years of research, the question about smoking and health is still open" [emphasis added]. {2205.01, p. 12}

 

The Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC), formed jointly by US tobacco companies in 1954, was the primary institution that helped the industry promote this message. (TIRC was renamed the Council for Tobacco Research-U.S.A. [CTR] in 1964. We will therefore refer to this organization as TIRC when discussing periods from 1954 to 1964 and as CTR when discussing periods after 1964.) By 1985 CTR's annual budget reached $11,278,000.

 

 

The industry stated publicly that it was forming TIRC in response to scientific reports suggesting a link between smoking and lung cancer, and that the purpose of TIRC was to fund independent scientific research to determine whether these reports were true. However, the documents show that TIRC was actually formed for public relations purposes, to convince the public that the hazards of smoking had not been definitively proven.

 

 

Link

 

Furthermore, I can also mention Semmelweiss, who made a connection between childbed fever and lack of hand washing. His findings conflicted with the consensus and were ignored until after his death:

 

Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics.[1] Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal, with mortality at 10%35%. Semmelweis postulated the theory of washing with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847[1] while working in Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives' wards. He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever.

 

Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister practised and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died, ironically, of septicemia at age 47.

 

Wiki

Edited August 27, 2012 by jimmydasaint

[iNow]

I think Jimmy means that there is good reason we work so hard to ensure the ideas withstand scrutiny before accepting them as valid. There are too many ways that ulterior motives or outright deception could be used to suggest otherwise.

[jimmydasaint]

That's exactly what I meant iNow. Thanks for the summary of my long-winded answer.

[John Cuthber]

There is another factor. I think it's less significant than it used to be but, as the phrase goes "steam engines are invented at steam engine time".

 

As you say "Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory ".

He was ahead of his time. The other bits of science that he needed hadn't been thought up yet.

[CharonY]

That isn't actually how it went down. Immediately after the NASA lab's experiment was reported on, a bunch of other labs launched their own experiments trying to replicate the result under the conditions of the original experiment. Skepticism arose when none of them could - it turned out that GFAJ-1 probably can't scavenge arsenic to replace phosphate in it's DNA, but is really really good at scavenging trace amounts of phosphate in harsh, arsenic rich environments. It's not an example of a scientific breakthrough being ridiculed by the community, it's an example of a result being broadly overstated, then retracted when it didn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

http://www.sciencene...ws_with_arsenic

http://www.sciencema...93/470.abstract

http://www.lefigaro....senic-edito.pdf

 

Actually that is not quite how it went down either, at least non-publicly. The issue here was the high-profile announcement of a extraordinary claim with little evidence. Main issue is that the none of the involved scientist were really microbiologist (the specialty of the senior authors include soil chemistry/geology and cosmology). So when that community took a look at the data (especially those with training in microbiology as well as analytical procedures) were quick to find errors and it was rather quickly dismissed in the respective communities (as extraordinary claims were not supported by extraordinary evidence).

 

The published rebuttal paper was basically something that most already expected (actually, there were quite a few labs asking for samples to re-do the analyses).

 

AFAIK there was not really ridicule going on, but quite some pity (as the lead author was still very junior, the senior ones were pretty much safe).

The only thing close to ridicule is the fact that quite a few scientists did not like the overselling of the data (depending on whom you ask it may have been the senior author's influence).

Especially microbiologist were unhappy that other (non-bio) folks were able to sell things that would (should) not have been published in that form in a proper microbiology journal (and which the authors apparently did not really understand).

 

Still, Arete's point stands. The main difference being that the paper itself, was very weak (but sold very high) and it was not the subsequently performed experiments that casted it into a bad light (though it was necessary to solidify the criticism).

A final point to add, quite a few felt that the error was not on the side of the junior lead author (though the NASA circus did not really help), but that in this case peer-review was not critical enough. A good example why new claims have to be met with skepticism.

Edited August 27, 2012 by CharonY

[Anilkumar]

Hi everybody,

 

The short answer is because the vast majority of ideas are wrong. . . Add to this basic aspects of human nature that will make people even more reluctant to give up what they thought was true.

 

 

How did we get from "reluctant to accept" to "ridicule"?

 

 

When did Reluctance become the scientific method of approaching the new hypotheses?

 

Which scientific technique takes us from ". . . because the vast majority of ideas are wrong" to "So one must be reluctant even to read new ideas"?

 

And when did the Knowledgeable adopt the ways of the unknowing to be Reluctant & Ridiculing?

 

__________________------------ 0000000 ------------

 

In the interest of Science & Mankind;

 

Which of the following is the right scientific method to approach a new hypothesis, when someone comes to an Expert, with one?

 

1. To go through it intently and discuss giving reasons, the consistencies/inconsistencies.
2. Be reluctant to see it for the reason that most of them are rubbish.
3. Ignore it totally.
4. Ridicule it by saying something like, "Oh, why do you think you found something that all the Scientists of the world didn't? In addition, you want me to look into it. You think I have nothing else to do?"

I think in the interest of Science & Mankind, the first one is the right thing to do. If the theory is consistent, Science will be enriched, otherwise the person who brought it will be educated and the strength of Science is emphasized.

 

And as far as, whether the expert has anything else to do is concerned, yes Truthfully, IMHO she has nothing else to do other than the following, in the sense that they are the main duties that have to be done.

 

• Giving expert guidance/service.
• Educate.
• Scrutinize new ideas.

If an Expert is reluctant, even to read, leave aside accepting new ideas, then God help Science and Mankind. Who else can do?

 

Human nature [as Swansont pointed out] should not be part of the yardstick that gauge scientific concepts.

 

__________________------------ 0000000 ------------

 

The knowledgeable person knows that a person claiming to have a new theory either has right reasons to support it or has reasons that she does not know are wrong. Then what is the point of Reluctance & Ridicule? Just check the reasons or give the right reasons. That is the way of doing Science. Reluctance or Ridicule isn't. Reluctance or Ridicule is human behaviors, not the ways of the knowledgeable to scrutinize scientific theories, not scientific methods.

 

It is a shame that Reluctance or Ridicule, the ways of the Non-Scientist, is being projected as the means to scrutinize new theories.

 

__________________------------ 0000000 ------------

 

. . . Thus the bar for accepting a new idea must be high. . .

 

Why can't the bar for scrutinizing a new idea be high, too?

 

Are Reluctance & Ridicule high bars?

 

Isn't Reasoning a high bar?

 

__________________------------ 0000000 ------------

 

 

I've shared it before, but it seems appropriate here...

 

 

If the Club, Sword, Axe etc represent the Reasoning, Logic, Mathematics, Microscope, Telescope, Thermometer, Voltmeter etc, then it is certainly appreciable. However, if they represent Intolerance, Reluctance, Ridicule, Contempt, Disregard, Sycophancy etc then God help Science & us.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Anilkumar

[studiot]

Anilkumar, thanks for the elequent support.

 

I couldn't be bothered to argue further.

Edited August 28, 2012 by studiot

[swansont]

Hi everybody,

 

When did Reluctance become the scientific method of approaching the new hypotheses?

 

Which scientific technique takes us from ". . . because the vast majority of ideas are wrong" to "So one must be reluctant even to read new ideas"?

I don't see how you reach that interpretation. I never said we should be reluctant to even read about new ideas. The reluctance is in accepting them.

 

Why can't the bar for scrutinizing a new idea be high, too?

Never said it can't be. People who scrutinize a new idea should have relevant knowledge and training.

 

The bottom line is that science is a process to identify the models of how the world works. You don't accept ideas unless there is a reasonable amount of evidence that the idea is correct. The bar is higher if there is already a model in place that has been shown to work. The new one has to somehow do better. Accepting new ideas without proper vetting leads you to superstition, like the idea that vaccines cause autism, or that homeopathic remedies work, or any other crank science ideas out there.

 

Furthermore, I can also mention Semmelweiss, who made a connection between childbed fever and lack of hand washing. His findings conflicted with the consensus and were ignored until after his death:

In addition to the problem of germ theory not being yet established, you also have to consider that, while there is quite a bit of overlap, medicine does not always follow the protocols of science, and its practitioners are not full-blown scientists.

[Arete]

Actually that is not quite how it went down either, at least non-publicly.

 

Makes sense. I only had the public account to go on.

 

• Giving expert guidance/service.
• Educate.
• Scrutinize new ideas.

 

 

Most scientists routinely do these - I participate in peer review of the work of other scientists through journal reviews, attending conferences, participating in seminars and workshops, mentoring both graduate and undergraduate research students enrolled at the institution which employs me, and participating in some community events.

 

What I don't do is go through unsolicited, wall of text emails from non-experts and blow by blow explain how they don't add up. A) It rarely, if ever persuades the sender of the flaws in their pet idea B) It often incurs the ire of the sender, and result in more wall of text emails C) It's a waste of my time D) It's not what I'm paid to do.

 

If non-experts want to participate in science, there's courses, there's community/citizen science projects etc. - volunteer at the museum, enroll in a science course, undertake an internship in a research lab, etc, etc, etc. If you want an idea scrutinized by the scientific community, there's peer reviewed journals and there's conferences. Like everything else in life, there's proper channels.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Arete

[ACG52]

Let's take a look at the typical crank/non-expert 'idea'.

 

There is no mathematical rigour to it, indeed, there's generally no math at all. It's usually word salad, with terms being used in ideosynchratic, non-standard ways. It's almost always challenging a hundred years of experimentation and research with no experiments or derivations to support the extravagent claims. It's not that they're reluctant to accept new ideas, it's that they're reluctant to wade through reams of garbage clogging their e-mail inboxes.

Edited August 29, 2012 by ACG52

[Anilkumar]

I don't see how you reach that interpretation. . .

 

The question is;

 

Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?

 

Your answer is;

 

The short answer is because the vast majority of ideas are wrong. Thus the bar for accepting a new idea must be high. Add to this basic aspects of human nature that will make people even more reluctant to give up what they thought was true.

 

My response was;

 

'To become reluctant, on the basis that the vast majority of ideas are wrong' is not a scientific method.

 

. . . I never said we should be reluctant to even read about new ideas. The reluctance is in accepting them. . .

 

I am saying here; there is reluctance to even open & read new ideas, leave aside scrutinizing them and later accepting them. However, the reason given for this that "because most of them are wrong" is not scientific.

 

How far is it scientifically justifiable, to approach all new ideas with this prejudice? Is it scientific? Is it prudent?

 

A) It rarely, if ever persuades the sender of the flaws in their pet idea B) It often incurs the ire of the sender, and result in more wall of text emails

 

It also shows the weakness of the persuasion about the flaws. Focusing on the ire of the proponent is not scientific, instead focusing on the inadequacy of the reasoning is truthful Science. Lamenting on the ire of the proponent is to conceal the weaknesses of one's own reasoning.

 

. . . C) It's a waste of my time . . .

 

And really Arete, Hypercube, Studiot, Jimmydasaint and others;

 

It is a waste of time to discuss this issue, because;

 

Science did not come into existence due to those who are Reluctant; instead, it came into existence due to those who are not Reluctant.

 

Science did not develop due to those who are unenthusiastic to new ideas. Instead, it developed due to those who are enthusiastic to new ideas.

 

Science did not develop due to those who didn't have time for Science. It developed due to those who dedicated their lives for it, and picked a genuine new idea at first sight and encouraged it.

 

Science came into being by those who are out there to get at the Truth at any cost. And not due to those who are more concerned about their time, money, job and living.

 

Science did not develop due to those who asses a new idea with dogmas as the yardstick, it developed due to assessing and pushing the core essence of the idea.

 

The world is out there to get at the Truth [that is why we have so much of Science here].

 

So don't be concerned about them who have all kinds of pretexts to prefer everything else other than Truth.

 

Reluctance does not decide anything. It stems out of incapability & apathy. There are people who love Science. There are people who love new ideas. If you have a new idea, you will meet your benefactor one day. Every Development comes from Benefactors, not from those who are Reluctant.

 

Human behavior does not possess the ability to shroud Truth. Truth is highly alluring, more than the charms of the most beautiful woman in the Universe. Because it answers questions. Because it is useful.

 

There is no use in asking why they are reluctant. That Reluctance is not scientific. It is human weakness. It is prejudice.

 

Science did not develop due to prejudicial human weaknesses. And,

 

not all are weak.

 

The very truths, which Science has developed until now, are a proof that, there are strong constructive minds here.

 

So do not be concerned.

 

. . . D) It's not what I'm paid to do. . .

 

Science is not doing what one is paid to do. Doing what one is paid to do, is Living. Science is quest for Truth.

 

. . . If non-experts want to participate in science, there's courses, there's community/citizen science projects etc. - volunteer at the museum, enroll in a science course, undertake an internship in a research lab, etc, etc, etc. If you want an idea scrutinized by the scientific community, there's peer reviewed journals and there's conferences. Like everything else in life, there's proper channels.

 

There is only one proper channel of Science. And that is;

 

Reasoning. The rest everything is dogma.

 

One who understands Logic; is a logician.

 

Possessing the credentials/designation to be called a Logician is dogma.

 

And a non-Logician with credentials is powerless and ineffective before a Logician without credentials, because it is the Logic that is in play there, not the credentials. Credentials are useless [for Science], dogma. They can only be used to appease [those who cannot assess capability otherwise, like it is marked on a Can of cold drink, 'Coke'.] to sell oneself, to make a living.

 

__________________------------ 0000000 ------------

Science is the world of collecting facts & figures for the quest of Truth. As the facts are accumulated, the Truth becomes clearer. But it is human nature of some to defend assiduously the status quo, because their thinking, their living and what they stood for until then depends on it, even if their act amounts to pushing aside Truth. Nevertheless, the basic verity remains that, if we don't change with changing facts we will be branded incapable and left behind.

 

__________________------------ 0000000 ------------

 

Let's take a look at the typical crank/non-expert 'idea'.

 

There is no mathematical rigour to it, indeed, there's generally no math at all. It's usually word salad, with terms being used in ideosynchratic, non-standard ways. It's almost always challenging a hundred years of experimentation and research with no experiments or derivations to support the extravagent claims. . .

 

How does one know it is a crank idea without reading it?

 

There is another current working here. Those who equip themselves with expertise, to get an honorable place in society, and whose only concern is to secure that place, will thwart all contradictory views which may bare their error and shall construct, that secure system which, will help them keep at bay such contradictory views that hurt, in order to continue to be safe in that honorable state, even if it amounts to discarding of Truth. Reluctance and Ridicule is part of that system. And this is the modern face of the past authoritarian priesthood.

 

Why sometimes, wrong theories hold ground for centuries?

 

It is due to this self-sustaining cult system. They go on preaching what they believe in. They go on encouraging those, who hold on to what they believe in. Thus a cult is built. Any contradicting view is crushed with the help of their secure system. As a result the cult builds up so much that, one can afford to live by following it. So everybody who wants to make a living starts following it. The trend catches on. A self-sustaining cult is born.

 

But Science is not about building cults. It is searching for Truth. And when Truth arrives the cults are demolished.

 

. . . It's not that they're reluctant to accept new ideas, it's that they're reluctant to wade through reams of garbage clogging their e-mail inboxes.

 

An anecdote comes to my mind;

 

Lord Rama was building a bridge across the Indian Ocean to cross over to Lanka. All of his army was engaged in transporting huge rocks to the Ocean. A Squirrel, seeing this Herculean task, felt it should do its bit to help Rama. It started bringing small pebbles in its little hands, not knowing it's deed is inept. Lord Rama saw it. He didn't condemn the squirrel saying 'how silly'. Instead, his heart was filled with appreciation for the squirrel's intention to help, to do good. He said to his men, one should possess such demeanor.

 

Those who label a person's quest for Truth as rubbish should not forget that, it is important that a person has set herself on the course of quest for Truth. That is commendable & respectable. Whether that person does not get the Truth is not important. Quest for Truth must be encouraged with appreciation. Condemning it with the tag Garbage, Wall of text, Word salad etc is not an appreciable act of a highly placed Expert.

 

Innovation is exploring into unknown areas. It demands risk appetite. But the innovative don't complain, they don't blink. After creating the vaccination for Rabies, Louis Pasteur, after testing it on animals affected with rabies was successful, he was reluctant to test on humans for fear that it might not work. Then he considered testing on himself by subjecting himself to rabies and then trying his cure. However, before he could implement his scheme a young boy was brought to him who had been bitten by a rabid dog. However, Louis Pasteur was not a licensed physician so, could have faced prosecution for treating the boy. Nevertheless, Pasteur decided to go ahead with the treatment.

 

While the Expert prefers the safe expertise. Expertise is attaining precision. It demands toil. One shouldn't complain.

 

Scientific research is the search for Truth. Like the investigation of crime is to get at the Truth. No clue must be discarded as garbage. Every clue must be studied & reasoned with utmost care. Similarly all new ideas of Science should be studied & reasoned with utmost care.

 

Reluctance is detrimental to any kind of quest.

__________________------------ 0000000 ------------

 

Arete, Don't be concerned about doing justice to the money paid to you. Be concerned about doing justice to your profession & Science.

 

If you are more concerned about your time, saving your job and/or money paid to you; you are not doing Science. And that's not, any better, than the wall of text and non-expert like.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Anilkumar

[Ringer]

The question is;

 

Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?

 

Your answer is;

 

 

My response was;

 

'To become reluctant, on the basis that the vast majority of ideas are wrong' is not a scientific method.

 

 

I am saying here; there is reluctance to even open & read new ideas, leave aside scrutinizing them and later accepting them. However, the reason given for this that "because most of them are wrong" is not scientific.

 

How far is it scientifically justifiable, to approach all new ideas with this prejudice? Is it scientific? Is it prudent?

 

It is extremely justifiable and it is scientific practice. Nothing is correct without evidence. I can say pink elephants are running through my room. Why would you think it would be prudent/scientific/etc. to believe me until someone showed me to be incorrect based solely on the fact that I wrote it?

 

It also shows the weakness of the persuasion about the flaws. Focusing on the ire of the proponent is not scientific, instead focusing on the inadequacy of the reasoning is truthful Science. Lamenting on the ire of the proponent is to conceal the weaknesses of one's own reasoning.

 

I don't think you've had a lot of experience in this area. I have probably argued with hundreds of Creationists, I'm from the bible belt in the US so they're everywhere, and only once have I ever had any of them even say they may be wrong. It is just as bad with the people who post they're amazing discoveries in the speculations sub-forum and they're shown to be wrong, or not even wrong. It's virtually never that they actually accept any evidence or reasoning other than their own.

 

And really Arete, Hypercube, Studiot, Jimmydasaint and others;

 

It is a waste of time to discuss this issue, because;

 

Science did not come into existence due to those who are Reluctant; instead, it came into existence due to those who are not Reluctant.

 

Science did not develop due to those who are unenthusiastic to new ideas. Instead, it developed due to those who are enthusiastic to new ideas.

 

Science did not develop due to those who didn't have time for Science. It developed due to those who dedicated their lives for it, and picked a genuine new idea at first sight and encouraged it.

 

Science came into being by those who are out there to get at the Truth at any cost. And not due to those who are more concerned about their time, money, job and living.

 

Science did not develop due to those who asses a new idea with dogmas as the yardstick, it developed due to assessing and pushing the core essence of the idea.

 

The world is out there to get at the Truth [that is why we have so much of Science here].

 

So don't be concerned about them who have all kinds of pretexts to prefer everything else other than Truth.

 

Reluctance does not decide anything. It stems out of incapability & apathy. There are people who love Science. There are people who love new ideas. If you have a new idea, you will meet your benefactor one day. Every Development comes from Benefactors, not from those who are Reluctant.

 

Human behavior does not possess the ability to shroud Truth. Truth is highly alluring, more than the charms of the most beautiful woman in the Universe. Because it answers questions. Because it is useful.

 

There is no use in asking why they are reluctant. That Reluctance is not scientific. It is human weakness. It is prejudice.

 

Science did not develop due to prejudicial human weaknesses. And,

 

not all are weak.

 

The very truths, which Science has developed until now, are a proof that, there are strong constructive minds here.

 

So do not be concerned.

 

I think you misunderstand their point. There are ways for people to explore their ideas, it is none of our jobs to help them. That being said it seems the majority of people on this forum use their free time to do exactly what you are complaining they do not do. They help people explore scientific questions and ideas. The problem is when people know nothing about the areas they are making "discoveries that will change the entire field". If there is an e-mail from an unknown source saying they are redefining an area of importance it is probably someone who is wasting time.

 

 

Science is not doing what one is paid to do. Doing what one is paid to do, is Living. Science is quest for Truth.

 

 

There is only one proper channel of Science. And that is;

 

Reasoning. The rest everything is dogma.

 

One who understands Logic; is a logician.

 

Possessing the credentials/designation to be called a Logician is dogma.

 

And a non-Logician with credentials is powerless and ineffective before a Logician without credentials, because it is the Logic that is in play there, not the credentials. Credentials are useless [for Science], dogma. They can only be used to appease [those who cannot assess capability otherwise, like it is marked on a Can of cold drink, 'Coke'.] to sell oneself, to make a living.

 

__________________------------ 0000000 ------------

Science is the world of collecting facts & figures for the quest of Truth. As the facts are accumulated, the Truth becomes clearer. But it is human nature of some to defend assiduously the status quo, because their thinking, their living and what they stood for until then depends on it, even if their act amounts to pushing aside Truth. Nevertheless, the basic verity remains that, if we don't change with changing facts we will be branded incapable and left behind.

 

__________________------------ 0000000 ------------

 

 

No science is about evidence and predictions. We don't have truth, we have kinda-truth. We gain evidence and make predictions, the closer the predictions are to reality the better, but we will always have error.

 

How does one know it is a crank idea without reading it?

 

etc.

 

If I look at someone's idea and it starts with a false premise, incorrect data, logical fallacy, word salad, etc, etc, etc. I can make a pretty good assumption it is a crank idea without reading the rest. An example:

 

I'm pretty sure Swansont made it clear it wasn't about not reading the idea at all, it was about accepting the idea. Which is why i didn't bother with the rest of your post. You started your argument with a straw-man. Since your premise begins with a logical fallacy I can be fairly comfortable in assuming the rest of it wouldn't be very compelling.

 

_________________

 

[ACG52]

The cranks always seem to feel that Science means looking at everything that comes along.

 

Invoke Sturgeon's Law: "99% of everything is crap".

[studiot]

Hello, Anilkumar, that was a long post ! phew ! and it contained much of worth.

 

However there are those inquirers whose posts are not motivated by pure science as you see it. Some post to create mischief.

 

go well

[swansont]

Hello, Anilkumar, that was a long post ! phew ! and it contained much of worth.

 

However there are those inquirers whose posts are not motivated by pure science as you see it. Some post to create mischief.

 

go well

Logical fallacies usually don't go over too well in a science discussion. For example, an ad hominem such as this, giving leave to ignore material that contradicts their position by appealing to motivation instead of on merit. IOW, you can't simply assume that someone who disagrees is doing so to create mischief.

 

The question is;

 

Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?

 

Your answer is;

 

 

My response was;

 

'To become reluctant, on the basis that the vast majority of ideas are wrong' is not a scientific method.

How is it not science? It's an empirical observation, on which one can build a model, and test it further. Those new tests fit the model: most new ideas are wrong.

 

Further, new ideas will not have as much evidence to support them. There hasn't been enough time to do so. So there is no reason to adopt a new idea until it is shown to be valid and/or an old one has been shown to be wrong.

 

I am saying here; there is reluctance to even open & read new ideas, leave aside scrutinizing them and later accepting them. However, the reason given for this that "because most of them are wrong" is not scientific.

And I'm saying that I never said anything about reluctance to even look at new ideas. It may be so. But it was not part if the discussion until you brought it up, thus anything I had written does not apply to that claim. It's wrong of you to try and make a connection between the two.

 

How far is it scientifically justifiable, to approach all new ideas with this prejudice? Is it scientific? Is it prudent?

Prudent? Perhaps. Scientists have limited time to do their work, so if you approach a scientist about some new idea, a brush-off is not unreasonable, since it's likely a waste of time. Optimizing your time is prudent.

 

But, on the other hand, there are plenty of scientists who do article peer review and give feedback. That's moot for people who do not go through the proper channels and who ignore the feedback.

 

There is only one proper channel of Science. And that is;

 

Reasoning. The rest everything is dogma.

Baloney. Science demands that the models it builds agree with what we observe. Logic/reasoning alone is insufficient to make that happen.

 

Science is the world of collecting facts & figures for the quest of Truth. As the facts are accumulated, the Truth becomes clearer. But it is human nature of some to defend assiduously the status quo, because their thinking, their living and what they stood for until then depends on it, even if their act amounts to pushing aside Truth. Nevertheless, the basic verity remains that, if we don't change with changing facts we will be branded incapable and left behind.

Incomplete. Science builds models and tests them, in an attempt to know how nature behaves. Facts are part of that, because you need them to build and test the models, but that's not the end-all, be-all of science.

 

Why sometimes, wrong theories hold ground for centuries?

Such as?

[studiot]

Logical fallacies usually don't go over too well in a science discussion. For example, an ad hominem such as this, giving leave to ignore material that contradicts their position by appealing to motivation instead of on merit. IOW, you can't simply assume that someone who disagrees is doing so to create mischief.

 

 

Whilst on re-reading my first sentence I would agree that my meaning was not clear.

However I really can't see that it can in any way lead to your interpretation.

[Arete]

It also shows the weakness of the persuasion about the flaws. Focusing on the ire of the proponent is not scientific, instead focusing on the inadequacy of the reasoning is truthful Science. Lamenting on the ire of the proponent is to conceal the weaknesses of one's own reasoning.

 

Let me know how you go convincing Answers in Genesis that intelligent design is not a valid scientific concept. Some explanations to some people are wasted breath.

 

 

And really Arete...Science did not come into existence due to those who are Reluctant; instead, it came into existence due to those who are not Reluctant.

 

Science did not develop due to those who are unenthusiastic to new ideas. Instead, it developed due to those who are enthusiastic to new ideas.

 

Science did not develop due to those who didn't have time for Science. It developed due to those who dedicated their lives for it, and picked a genuine new idea at first sight and encouraged it...

 

Did you miss the first paragraph of my post? I spend a lot of my time reviewing new ideas in papers, hearing about them and discussing them at conferences, workshops and seminars, teaching students the critical thinking skills they need to come up with new ideas, etc and so on. In my experience, as a scientist, scientists are very open to new ideas. They aren't open to pages and pages of word salad.

 

Why are you randomly capitalizing words?

 

If you have a new idea, you will meet your benefactor one day. Every Development comes from Benefactors, not from those who are Reluctant.... Science is not doing what one is paid to do. Doing what one is paid to do, is Living. Science is quest for Truth.

 

Actually, science is exactly what I'm paid to do. Scientists can, according to wikipedia be separated by either field of study or employer http://en.wikipedia....s_of_scientists

 

More specifically, as my salary is funded by a federal grant, a panel of other scientists, representing the taxpayers of the USA employ me to investigate a specific question I proposed to answer in my grant proposal. If we really want to get antsy, I'm not paid in my capacity as a scientist to evaluate new ideas at all - I'm paid to investigate a specific idea I came up with and wrote a grant proposal to investigate. All that time I spend reviewing new ideas as outlined in the first paragraph of my first post is peripheral to my core responsibilities and part of my service to the scientific community.

 

There is only one proper channel of Science. And that is;

 

Reasoning. The rest everything is dogma.

Ok, so to get more specific: there is a proper way, in science to convey your ideas and have them evaluated. I outlined those channels in my previous post. Spamming random academics with unsolicited emails is not amongst them. If your ideas are worth being considered, they are worth presenting in an accepted format.

Novel ideas are extremely valuable in science. A career can and often is built on a single, novel idea and the investigation thereof. Exciting new hypotheses can be gold mines of knowledge and research. It is therefore unusual when someone starts throwing them at random strangers. I've never received an unsolicited email with an idea in it which wasn't either fundamentally flawed, unintelligible, or religiously motivated and unscientific. These ideas are being given away for free because they are worthless.

 

I've already outlined the methods in which scientists routinely provide service to their communities by evaluating new ideas. Again, replying to wall-of-text emails is not amongst them. If you or anyone else wants their ideas evaluated by the scientific community, they're worth putting in the correct format.

 

Arete, Don't be concerned about doing justice to the money paid to you. Be concerned about doing justice to your profession & Science.

 

Read the first paragraph of my first post which you seem to have missed.

[proximity1]

And what if there is no existing theory ie the theory is completely new?

 

There is a long history of innovators being ridiculed or ignored,

 

Gallileo

Parsons

Noether

Wegner

Whittle

Flemming

Mandelbrot

 

 

Permit me to add one,

 

Jean-Jacques Kupiec

 

though he's now a good deal less ignored than was once the case. (Note: I am not a scientist by training or profession. I've just developed---as though by accident--a sort of specialty interest in the very matter of unorthodox opinion facing intransigent orthodoxy--in science, in the arts, and other aspects. For example, not everyone believes that Shakespeare came from a modest and mainly illiterate family in Straford-Upon-Avon. Some see, instead, the the person of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, behind the name Shakespeare (and I am in that camp). But, if that is your view, too, then for a first-hand experience in the realities of bucking entrenched professional opinion, try getting a university position teaching Shakespeare and notice the consequences.)

 

The fact is that the issue raised by the thread's opening post is indeed very, very common in science. In the case of Kupiec, while there is existing theory--indeed, lots of it---his version is quite revolutionary, even though he builds on important work from other predecessors and, most notably, Charles Darwin.

 

Now, you've been warned that I'm not an expert on this or any other science, but here is my non-expert's assessment:

 

Kupiec, not alone, of course, but together with his colleagues, is doing the work that I think Darwin would be doing if he were alive today and had the same benefit of the intervening years of scientific knowledge in molecular biology. My layman's view is that in his genius and in the importance of his work, Kupiec is every bit Darwin's peer and his L'origine des individus every bit the peer of The Origin of Species. And, yes, I know that that is a very great claim. But, if you haven't already read his work, read it and judge for yourself. His L'origine des individus will, I believe, one day have the status and importance of The Origin of Species.

Edited August 31, 2012 by proximity1

[swansont]

Whilst on re-reading my first sentence I would agree that my meaning was not clear.

However I really can't see that it can in any way lead to your interpretation.

You don't see how one might interpret "However there are those inquirers whose posts are not motivated by pure science as you see it. Some post to create mischief." as meaning "some people disagreeing with you might simply be causing mischief"? I can't think of another way to interpret it. Perhaps you can restate it?

[proximity1]

I think the essence of the issue is that all new ideas are ridiculed at first but that the ones that are correct get accepted (in some cases ratehr slowly).

The alternative would be that new ideas were accepted immediately.

Now, we have seen on this site some remarkable ideas put forward.

Just think of the mess that science would be in if all the crackpot ideas were accepted.

 

It's a type 1 vs type 2 error problem.

http://en.wikipedia...._type_II_errors

 

And the odds of a new idea being true and useful are pretty thin so the boundary for accepting them is set very high.

 

 

Incidentally, if Studiot's list had been

Benveniste

http://en.wikipedia....ques_Benveniste

Blondlot

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

and

Hahnemann

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Homeopathy

and

Fleischmann

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Cold_fusion

 

 

he could have made the same point.

All these people were ridiculed.

 

Fine, but, again, citing Kupiec as my "star-witness" example, his theories have a thirty year record of serious work behind them and, in his specialty, he is still regarded by many as a maverick--that is, his work remains very much the unorthodox view. (Bear in mind that in all that I post on this topic, I'm a layman relying on another's work as the basis of the positions I try to defend here. So, when you want to ask, "How do you know that?!" the answer is and most always will be, "I read it in a book by some very smart guy or woman.")

 

To get an idea of just how unusual a theoretical approach is his, imagine that you changed your views on phylogenesis and phenotypes accordingly,

 

"Species" is an abstraction that we must chuck out the window with "race" and other passé conceptions in biology. Darwin, Kupiec points out, scoffed at the attempts of his contemporaries to define "species" and, in the correspondence cited, wrote that it amused him to find these scientists trying to define what he saw as resistant to all definition.

 

Our bodies' organs are not "in the service of" our body as a whole. Instead, it is the other way around. In general, each internal organ is a creature of evolution's work, and doesn't "exist to serve" some conception of the interests of the larger organism--if, for no other reason that there are no such "interests of the larger organism". Those are imported by people who impute a finalist view of biological processes. In the body, organs operate (well or not well) in the particular individual's "environment". Cells, tissue, and the organs they compose, work in ways that rather exactly mirror the interactive relationships of plant and animal life as it exists in an evolving natural environment, exterior to the human body.

 

The same random (unpredictable) behavior at the quantum level of matter---the atomic protons, electrons, neutrons, etc.---which is assumed to operate in "inanimate matter" operates in the matter that composes living organisms. So, the compounds that compose genes, proteins, cells and all other living tissue are themselves composed of elemental particles which behave in a random fashion at their atomic level---with the result that a seeming deterministic operation of genes and DNA is instead the result of what are only probabalistic outcomes, over very great numbers of cells, etc.

 

As strange ideas go, these are generally outside the mainstream views which students of biology learn--even as specialists, according to Kupiec.

 

Is he wrong?

Edited August 31, 2012 by proximity1

[Arete]

Is he wrong?

 

At least his comment on species concepts seems ignorant of

 

A) The agonizing Darwin did over the species problem. Darwin did not "scoff at" the concept of species and wrote a considerable body of work on the issue. The actual writings of Darwin seem to suggest that he spent a great deal of time and energy trying to reconcile the species problem, and was in no way dismissive of it - http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim/darwin_on_spp.html

 

B) The fact that scientists know that species boundaries are arbitrary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem. It is in fact mainstream science which defines organismal diversification as a continuous process and thus introduces the problem that classification of a hierarchical, ongoing process is, by definition, artificial. Being artificial is, however very different from being useless.

 

C) The evolution of the concept in light of genetics to arrive at a more biologically informative, and therefore useful state. The work of people like Ernst Mayr and Theodosius Dobzhansky in the development of the modern concept of species:

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl.1/6600.full

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/dobzhansky_organic-diversity.html

 

and the current consensus that species define "independently evolving metapopulations."

 

http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/6/879.short

 

Compare this to the concept of races for which the same author as noted above (Dobzhansky) for contributions to solving the species problem, called for the abolition of due to the non-evidence of their existence: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2739576

 

So at least in the area of the species problem, he seems to have gotten it rather comprehensively wrong.

[proximity1]

At least his comment on species concepts seems ignorant of

 

A) The agonizing Darwin did over the species problem. Darwin did not "scoff at" the concept of species and wrote a considerable body of work on the issue. The actual writings of Darwin seem to suggest that he spent a great deal of time and energy trying to reconcile the species problem, and was in no way dismissive of it - http://www.ucl.ac.uk...win_on_spp.html

 

B) The fact that scientists know that species boundaries are arbitrary http://en.wikipedia....pecies_problem. It is in fact mainstream science which defines organismal diversification as a continuous process and thus introduces the problem that classification of a hierarchical, ongoing process is, by definition, artificial. Being artificial is, however very different from being useless.

 

C) The evolution of the concept in light of genetics to arrive at a more biologically informative, and therefore useful state. The work of people like Ernst Mayr and Theodosius Dobzhansky in the development of the modern concept of species:

http://www.pnas.org/...ppl.1/6600.full

http://www.stephenja...-diversity.html

 

and the current consensus that species define "independently evolving metapopulations."

 

http://sysbio.oxford.../56/6/879.short

 

Compare this to the concept of races for which the same author as noted above (Dobzhansky) for contributions to solving the species problem, called for the abolition of due to the non-evidence of their existence: http://www.jstor.org...10.2307/2739576

 

So at least in the area of the species problem, he seems to have gotten it rather comprehensively wrong.

 

 

You've read some of Kupiec's papers or his The Origin of Individuals, then?

[Arete]

You've read some of Kupiec's papers or his The Origin of Individuals, then?

 

Does he, as you claim, call the concept of species an "abstraction", compare it to the concept of races, call for its abolition and claim Darwin "scoffed" at it?

 

If so it would seem as though he is fundamentally ignorant of the works of Darwin, state of the field evolutionary biology and comprehensively misses the point the concept of species (all cited in my previous post).

 

There is always the possibility that you've misinterpreted his work, represented it poorly or I have misunderstood what you wrote - feel free to provide clarification.

 

Given my limited familiarity with his cellular Darwinism theories is seems the latter is likely. Cellular Darwinism lacks a solid empirical foundation, while simultaneously contradicting many of the well-supported principles of population genetics - which is why it isn't mainstream science. He's never offered as an overthrow to species concepts and pop-gen principles in peer review to my knowledge. If he doe so in his book - he's probably wrong.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Arete

[Ben Banana]

"Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?"

 

That's exactly how science should be. That's why it's different. Also, we should realize the difference between a framework for understanding and a materialistic assertion. Science usually seems quite permissive as long as a proposed framework does not cross with materialistic assertions too aggressively. Compare "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" with "String Theory." Now imagine the consequence of particle physics being handled alike these, e.g. consider the Higgs Boson. The 'Higgs Boson' was a very materialistic proposition in the sense which means it was a hypothesis with a high necessity for proof of being materialistically real. Of course, Isaac Newton tested his ideas, but in a very different sense: for confirming a more abstract range of consistency between his theory and reality. Due to the nature of his theory, the only fact which mattered was whether his theory validly applied to accurately predicting and modelling phenomena in reality; not whether it completely and materialistically corresponded to reality. We should take issue with theorists who construct mere theory (not solutions) with irresponsibly arbitrary constituents. Theory which begins as a solution for predicting phenomena is acceptable, and theory which begins as a machine for discovering materialist facts which may serve as gateways to validating more predictive theory is acceptable too. It is unacceptable when a theory begins as a machine to assert pretty materialist facts in such an arbitrary way that the theory may just as well be designed to gloriously solve all other theorists' frustrations with a magic pill. Then the fanatics dance.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Ben Bowen