Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?

[proximity1]

This is not how science is practised, therefore in your view science is practised incorrectly.

 

How do you account for its success?

 

Allow me to offer some thoughts on that one--

 

In general, and to anyone who takes any honest overview of the histories of various sciences --I make no exceptions at all-- one has to notice that to account for "science's" success (note: this way of putting it is itself a telling way to pose the matter since "science" is a pure abstraction--though throughout this thread its (i.e. "science's) self-descibed "defenders" consistently present the matter as one of "science" when, in fact, we're concerned here with people, scientists, not formal abstractions called "science") but to get back to my main point--- scientists' success, is generally and overwhelmingly a matter of sheer plain stumbling, feeling around, trial-and-error rewarded by plain accident in most cases, that is how,when viewed over a long stretch of a field's practitioners' history, scientists' successes are mainly to be accounted for.

 

All research, all researchers, are above all indebted to something that is sheer accident. It doesn't matter that they had a hypothesis, or that "they were looking for "X" and "found it." The fact remains that in virtually every case, something completely essential in their work and its success was put down to a chance occurrance. Period.

 

I have yet to hear of any reliable account of any advance in any science coming about without a very essential component of this chance element.

 

Scientists, along with all the rest of what they do, essentially "luck into" whatever the case may be---and this, first and foremost includes an imponderable element which, for lack of a better term, we call "inspiration".

 

This entire site would benefit greatly if these simple and essential features of human investigatory enterprise were noticed and honestly accounted for and admitted. But, it seems to me that, since no actual science is done here, what comes in effect to be the driving imperative at this site is to lay down and enforce a very blinkered view of things, and to hostily attack any and all unconventional thinking that goes outside the lines inside which participants may use their crayons to color.

Edited December 11, 2012 by proximity1

[Ophiolite]

I sense you think you are disagreeing with me. Is that the case?

[proximity1]

I sense you think you are disagreeing with me. Is that the case?

 

Is that directed to me? If so, it's not easy to answer with a simple "yes" or "no". Much of the commentary in the thread seems to me to present a number of implied views about science, the grand enterprise, rather than scientists, the plodding and fallible practitioners of science, without making what's implied quite clear, quite explicit. It seems to me that the recurring references to "science" are a convenient way to avoid and deflect the problems which are inherent in scientists and their everyday enterprise--which goes as, of course, for all sorts of other people who conduct some sort of prolonged enterprise--research, education, business management, law--what have you. In all of them there is theory and there is practice and it's much easier to hold up the ideals of the theory as though these were in fact exemplary of common practice. Generally, the common practices fall far short of the ideals of the theory so there's a clear strategic advantage gained in trying to insist on keeping the focus on the idea and the ideals of "science" but these are rarely or never actually lived up to. Am I disagreeing with you? I don't know. All I know is what I observe here and elsewhere about scientists and science and those who are or who pretend to be their defenders or detractors.

 

My position is fairly simple. "Science" is a wonderful thing in the abstract sense as opposed to the human world of scientific practice, which is sometimes admirable, sometimes deplorable, depending very much on the particulars--the individuals concerned, their habits, ways of thinking and behaving. As with all other cultural endeavors, if society in general is in decline for brief or extended periods, this degradation typically touches and influences, or can, many, many aspects of a living culture--plastic arts, literature, morals, business affairs, and, no less, the practice of science. Something that has distinguished the practice of science in the 20th century--especially so and more and more so since the end of World War I (1914-1918)--from the practice of science from, say, the 17th through part of the 19th centuries is the way in which today science has become a complete captive of corporate power and the high-finance that goes with that--research institutions and universities, whether private or public are fully implicated in that. In a way that marks our times off from the centuries past, it is now practically impossible for many areas of science research to be done outside the realm of concentrated political and financial power and its controlling interests. I think that this bears importantly, though, on all the general issues of how scientists (and especially researchers) behave professionally and that it includes very directly their readiness to give consideration to novel theoretical developments.

 

Other than this specific point, whether our times are particularly deplorable is very hard to say. I tend to think that our present cultural faults and sufferings are just the current versions of what has generally been the case throughout history. But that's somewhat depressing since it suggests that progress is not only very transitory and fragile but perhaps simply a matter of more or less convenient illusion.

 

I also think that an aspect of what makes the thread interesting is that, as I see it, anyway, we live in times which are technologically still quite impressive and this impressiveness casts a glow which tends to place scientists in a still favorable light among many--though I think that's a simplistic and erroneous confusion of technology with science and the people who practice it. I'm not saying that the confusion describes your part or thinking; I'm adding it for what it's worth in the mix of this discussion--a topic with multîple and important facets, not all of which get our attention.

 

____________________

 

As a Postscript, here's an article I can't access right away but which I'll try and look up in a library and read it when it arrives; meanwhile, for those who do have access to the journal Nature in one form or another, there's this in the current issue:

 

Research grants: Conform and be funded

• Joshua M. Nicholson¹
• & John P. A. Ioannidis²
• Affiliations
• Corresponding author
• Journal name:
• Nature
• Volume:
• 492,
• Pages:
• 34–36
• Date published:
• (06 December 2012)
• DOI:
• doi:10.1038/492034a
• Published online
• 05 December 2012

Edited December 12, 2012 by proximity1

[Ophiolite]

The reason I asked if you were disagreeing with me is that your lengthy posts #101 opened with a quote from one of my posts. However, having read your response several times I was left in the dark as to what you thought.

 

The only glimmering of sense I got is that you think many/most/all in this thread speaking positively of science are doing so with blinkers. If that is what you are trying to say I don't have any comment for the others, but I shall state my own position.

 

1. There have been attacks on the methodology of science. These attacks have reflected a poor understanding of that methodology. I have attempted to correct them.

2. I do agree with you that the practice of science may differ from the how it is meant to work. But, and this is the key point, this is a short term failing. The demands of peer review and the requirement that everything be tested mean that poor ideas will be eventually overturned and better theories will be put in their place.

 

You are distressed that in the process there may be many instances of scientists acting like humans. My view is "shit happens, deal with it". In the long term the methodology works despite the weaknesses of humans, therefore - back to point 1 - I defend the methodology.

 

Edit: I just noted that your earlier post received 2 neg reps. I don't see why and I just wanted to make you aware I was neither of them.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Ophiolite

[swansont]

All research, all researchers, are above all indebted to something that is sheer accident. It doesn't matter that they had a hypothesis, or that "they were looking for "X" and "found it." The fact remains that in virtually every case, something completely essential in their work and its success was put down to a chance occurrance. Period.

 

This is completely unremarkable. Similarly, scientists are also hindered by chance occurrences. Random things happen.

[Ophiolite]

 

This is completely unremarkable. Similarly, scientists are also hindered by chance occurrences. Random things happen.

As I think I pointed out in my previous post the correct technical term for random in this context is shit: shit things happen.

[proximity1]

The reason I asked if you were disagreeing with me is that your lengthy posts #101 opened with a quote from one of my posts. However, having read your response several times I was left in the dark as to what you thought.

 

The only glimmering of sense I got is that you think many/most/all in this thread speaking positively of science are doing so with blinkers. If that is what you are trying to say I don't have any comment for the others, but I shall state my own position.

 

1. There have been attacks on the methodology of science. These attacks have reflected a poor understanding of that methodology. I have attempted to correct them.

2. I do agree with you that the practice of science may differ from the how it is meant to work. But, and this is the key point, this is a short term failing. The demands of peer review and the requirement that everything be tested mean that poor ideas will be eventually overturned and better theories will be put in their place.

 

You are distressed that in the process there may be many instances of scientists acting like humans. My view is "shit happens, deal with it". In the long term the methodology works despite the weaknesses of humans, therefore - back to point 1 - I defend the methodology.

 

Edit: I just noted that your earlier post received 2 neg reps. I don't see why and I just wanted to make you aware I was neither of them.

 

On that key point, then, we do disagree--and to put it briefly, RE "... In the long term the methodology works despite the weaknesses of humans, therefore - back to point 1 - I defend the methodology," as Maynard Keynes replied to those who insisted that in the long run standard economic theory holds up, "In the long run, we're all dead."

 

As I think the OP and others here are trying to argue, the problem with your rosy view of it depsite the too simplistic résumé that "shit happens", is that this shit is not the exception. Rather, they are those interludes where some scientists show themselves (and us) the better part of science practice, that is what is the punctual aspect. Ordinarily, in the typical day to day, we have people--including many "scientists, (I daresay, most scientists in some respects) behaving badly." This is nothing peculiar to scientists. I can't point to any field of contemporary human endeavor and say, "There!, there is an example of a field where they only rarely go off the rails. Scientists should strive to be more like ..." Who or what is not, these days, suffering from chronic moral corruption? Our institutions, across the board are failing us. There is no reason why we should think that these trends leave scientists wiithout blemish--to put it mildly.

 

However, "everybody does it, so ..." does not suffice as an exit strategy eithe, here. Our society lives and dies by how well scientists practice their crafts. If for no other reason than that this thread's topic is a crucial one.

 

Yes, I'm distressed--but not merely because scientists "act like humans." That's just another way of pleading 'Nobody's perfect!' But that misses the points. No one claims we have or could have perfection. What's missing is a level that's far inferior to perfection. Scientists too often aren't even up to a respectable degree of non-perfection, that is the problem. And, as I understand your view, the standard procedures eventually amend those problems. I think the gist of the thread's OP is that, alas, they don't and we don't have reasonable cause to expect that they shall.

 

This isn't just a question of whether and how,it eventually happens that one day, 'in the end,' better theory prevails over error. I grant that. And, again, my firm conviction is that both for better and for worse, more than any other factor, when one view or another claims an advance, it has come thanks to much chance intervention. Yes, scientists apply a full panoply of method; they aren't simply shooting completely blindly--though at times, frankly, they are actually using sheer guess-work efforts--but method, even conscientiously applied only reduces the chance factor, it does not and cannot ever eliminate it. But, again, this is when scientists are doing their work largely free of the worst influences of human nature as we currently see it exhibited (I want to disavow the view that our nature is fixed permanently as a phylogenic feature.)

 

I think that the thread would have been cashiered long ago if the case were simply one of people behaving according to their usual bad habits but corrected and amended by the fine rigors of scientific institutions' corrective influences. Simply, that's the pre-purchase "demo version." Once home, and after the purchase warranty has passed, all the flaws come into view.

 

In recent publications or broadcasts, I've heard or read it observed, astutely, that now, we no longer "enjoy" "progress,"--esp. technological progress, we suffer it. And that, as much as anything else, is inextricably bound up with the resistance by scientists to new--and so, unwelcome,--ideas. Technology is now driving scientists' research and their perceptions and their priorities. And the consequences are in part behind the fact that a curious and concerned person could launch a thread such as this and behind its garnering what could well be some eight hundred viewers passing notice.

 

Among scientists, though it's very rare, it's possible to find a few who will directly address the topic openly and under their own names--though it has to be said that only exceptionally brave or reckless individuals will do that. I have referenced one, above, J. M. Nicholson, at Virginia Tech. (the current issue of Nature (Dec. 6) ).

 

Since then, I've had the occasion to find and begin to read another brief essay by Nicholson on the same topic--this time, in BioEssays Journal, 34: 448-450 (bioessays-journal.com)

 

"Collegiality and careerism trump critical questions and bold new ideas: a student's perspective and solution"

 

Those with access via an institution--such as scientists typically have--can read the three-page, referenced, article. I recommend it. It's insightful and it's a brave piece of reasoning and well-written.

 

I refrain from citing it at all except for this single brilliant observation, out of respect for its author and his and the publisher's (Wiley) copyright.

 

"The novelty of an idea can be measured by how many ideas and people it contradicts."

 

 

It deserves wide and thoughtful attention but, published in June of this year, I very much doubt that a search of this site via keyword would bring any mention prior to that in this present post.

 

As a non-specialist observer of science and scientists, I'm heartened that there are some like J. M. Nicholson on their way (Up?) in science. But, how many like him are there? For an idea, just see how many similar articles you can find on this topic as he treats it. I suspect that there are very very few and for the obvious reason that they are not welcome--as he points out about the most original new ideas in science, as well.

 

and, to end this post, a quote from Dr. Claude Bernard (translated and cited in Hadamard (1945) The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field, (Princeton Univ. Press),

 

"Those who have an excessive faith in their ideas are not well fitted to make discoveries."

 

We're suffering from science practiced by those who, well-paid, even in cases, simply bought out and owned, have an excessive faith in the ideas that they are so well paid and promoted to propagate and defend against sometimes far better ideas which aren't favored by money and money's power.

Edited December 12, 2012 by proximity1

[CharonY]

Proximity, the last part of your post is specifically targeting science funding. This is actually quite a different discussion as politics (and hence, public pressure) plays a bigger role. Obviously it does has impact on the scientific community (especially as they determine academic careers) but the mechanisms (and thus, outcomes) are somewhat different to those in academic discussions, which mostly happen within publications and conferences.

The linked paper addresses the problem of science careers more than anything. And to be honest I feel that the article was written by a junior scientist getting a first glimpse on the financing system, which is a rather depressive view. But I also feel that it is overly simplicistic description of the issue (it reads a bit like a piece from a grad student not actually actively involved in securing funding and managing a lab, but I may be wrong).

But if we want to discuss science funding, I would suggest to open up a new thread as it really is a rather complicated issue (not that I have a lot of nice things to say, though).

[swansont]

This isn't just a question of whether and how,it eventually happens that one day, 'in the end,' better theory prevails over error. I grant that. And, again, my firm conviction is that both for better and for worse, more than any other factor, when one view or another claims an advance, it has come thanks to much chance intervention. Yes, scientists apply a full panoply of method; they aren't simply shooting completely blindly--though at times, frankly, they are actually using sheer guess-work efforts--but method, even conscientiously applied only reduces the chance factor, it does not and cannot ever eliminate it. But, again, this is when scientists are doing their work largely free of the worst influences of human nature as we currently see it exhibited (I want to disavow the view that our nature is fixed permanently as a phylogenic feature.)

 

I can't seem to connect this to the question presented in the OP. It was lucky that I was in the lab that early morning in 1996 when we trapped K-37 for the first time, because the other postdoc was dog-tired and didn't see/recognize the signal on the screen.

 

What does it have to do with reluctance to accept new ideas?

[proximity1]

 

I can't seem to connect this to the question presented in the OP. It was lucky that I was in the lab that early morning in 1996 when we trapped K-37 for the first time, because the other postdoc was dog-tired and didn't see/recognize the signal on the screen.

 

What does it have to do with reluctance to accept new ideas?

 

I replied to a direct query (asked of Anilkumar) by Ophiolite from post 100 :

 

"This is not how science is practised, therefore in your view science is practised incorrectly. How do you account for its success?"

 

That question was asked and was asked without objections. Now you're objecting to my responding to it as not relevant to the thread?

 

 

Proximity, the last part of your post is specifically targeting science funding. This is actually quite a different discussion as politics (and hence, public pressure) plays a bigger role. Obviously it does has impact on the scientific community (especially as they determine academic careers) but the mechanisms (and thus, outcomes) are somewhat different to those in academic discussions, which mostly happen within publications and conferences.

The linked paper addresses the problem of science careers more than anything. And to be honest I feel that the article was written by a junior scientist getting a first glimpse on the financing system, which is a rather depressive view. But I also feel that it is overly simplicistic description of the issue (it reads a bit like a piece from a grad student not actually actively involved in securing funding and managing a lab, but I may be wrong).

But if we want to discuss science funding, I would suggest to open up a new thread as it really is a rather complicated issue (not that I have a lot of nice things to say, though).

 

 

 

As the cited paper (by J.M. Nicholson) points out, the connection between issues and structures of funding and those of what theories experts/scientists entertain is direct, intimate and inextricable.

 

The sentence I quoted,

 

""The novelty of an idea can be measured by how many ideas and people it contradicts."

 

should have also included the sentence which followed it in the text,

 

"The acceptance and funding of said idea is thus inversely related to its novelty."

 

Please note the highlighted terms above. They are the very heart and substance of the thread's title:

 

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

 

So, an active scientist, publishing in a professional journal, draws a direct connection--supported by citations--between funding and the general liklihood of acceptance of novel ideas in a given scientific field.

 

Am I to understand that this relation is being denied, or is for some reason "out of order" in the context of this discussion?

 

You've impugned the sophistication of the author's reasoning: "...But I also feel that it is overly simplicistic description of the issue ..."

 

and you've impugned the author's credibility as lakcing in experience : "...it reads a bit like a piece from a grad student"...

 

But you don't specify a single assertion in the body of the text nor a single link in the chain of reasoning as false, inaccurate or lacking in pertinence.

 

So, I wonder, as to accuracy and pertinence, exactly what do you dispute in this article and why?

Edited December 13, 2012 by proximity1

[CharonY]

There are several issue which stand out to me as someone who is not actually actively involved in securing funds. And again, I would like to separate the issue of acceptance of scientific idea and their fundability as the two are not the same (though intertwined from a career viewpoint).

 

I only skimmed the latter part of the essay the first time and came to the conclusion but after re-reading the author pretty much confirmed that it is written from a student´s perspective (see title and the first few sentences of the essay).

Another aspect that the author completely ignores is that established scientist in a field usually have a reason for their reputation (i.e. experience is a specific area). If they compete with a newcomer, they are very likely to have an advantage. Is it disproportional? Obviously, once you managed to get funding your chances of getting more increase. The big hurdle is to get your first grant in. It is less an issue of innovation, but of seniority. An established scientist has a bigger chance to push through a somewhat quirky idea (due to his track record) rather than a new one.

There are different mechanisms in the NIH (not the mentioned transformative grant that the author mentioned, its goal is a completely different one) that are supposed to help junior scientists, including postdoctoral level grants, as well as a less harsh review process for first-time grants.

Nonetheless, this is not about accepting new ideas at this point. Also the author is not very coherent in his argumentation as in the first part of his assay he cites reluctance of novel ideas by citing some (let´s say, controversial) ideas of very established scientists and then claim that established scientists do not have novel ideas (note that the examples were also not necessarily novel, such as. GM food toxicity)..

 

Also he somehow equates contradiction with existing finding as novelty. How is simple contradiction a novelty? A true novelty does not contradict existing knowledge, but expands it. And finally the idea of crowdsourcing, especially for life sciences is a typical hip idea that is not very thought out. If a problem is so specific that you cannot gather sufficient support from the scientific community, how much do you have to dumb it down and sensationalize it to gather significant amount of public interest?

Also the author does not appear to know the amount of money required to establish a successful research project. A R01 (the bread and butter grant from the NIH) has a volume of one million in direct costs plus overhead. How many projects of that volume could be reasonably crowdsourced? If that was the way to go we would only do high-profile rock and roll research (which, incidentally the NIH is quite keen on funding) rather than the more basic research that will open up new horizons.

 

As a whole the essay is merely an opinion piece with little on data from a rather limited perspective. Note that the funding system (more or less worldwide) is not ideal. Not even close, but the real problems are much more in the details.

Edited December 14, 2012 by CharonY

[swansont]

I replied to a direct query (asked of Anilkumar) by Ophiolite from post 100 :

 

"This is not how science is practised, therefore in your view science is practised incorrectly. How do you account for its success?"

 

That question was asked and was asked without objections. Now you're objecting to my responding to it as not relevant to the thread?

 

Not to be too pedantic, but you replied to post 100 in post 102. Post 108, which is what I quoted, was not really in response to any question that you quoted.

 

So … no relevance.

[proximity1]

 

Not to be too pedantic, but you replied to post 100 in post 102. Post 108, which is what I quoted, was not really in response to any question that you quoted.

 

So … no relevance.

 

No, I did not. Post 102 is by Ophiolite. My posts 101, 103 and 107 all respond to prior posts, and all reference the posts to which they respond. Post 108 is not mine, it is one by CharonY responding to me.

 

Each of the posts by me, above, is directly relevant to the post I reference directly. So, yes, they are relevant to the prior comments--(none of which prior comments drew any objections from you)-- since they directly respond to comments addressed (other than in the initial case of 101 where I reply first to Ophiolite addressed to Anilkumar , @ 11 Dec 2012 - 19:28) to me personally.

Edited December 13, 2012 by proximity1

[swansont]

No, I did not. Post 102 is by Ophiolite. My posts 101, 103 and 107 all respond to prior posts, and all reference the posts to which they respond. Post 108 is not mine, it is one by CharonY responding to me.

 

My count may be off because of my staff permissions; my post count may include a post which has been hidden.

 

Regardless, since you have continued along this arc: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68592-why-are-scientists-seemingly-reluctant-to-accept-new-ideas/page-6?p=717964#entry717964 is the response to Ophiolite's question (and is listed as 102 in my browser). It is not the one I quoted. I didn't say your post was not a response, I said it was not a response to a question. Ophiolite made a clarification. It wasn't a question.

 

This is all a bit pointless. (I'd add a rhetorical isn't it? here, but that might be seen as an encouragement to respond, so I won't). I simply wondered if I was missing some connection to the OP, and I wasn't.

[StringJunky]

A thought concerning the OP. The scientists here are not reluctant to accept new ideas; they are reluctant to accept wrong ideas. I'm sure swansont et al read every new idea presented here and continue reading it until it falls apart scientifically ...this will probably be in the first paragraph or two. It is is not the job of scientists to help mend a flawed hypothesis; only to critique it.

[imatfaal]

A thought concerning the OP. The scientists here are not reluctant to accept new ideas; they are reluctant to accept wrong ideas. I'm sure swansont et al read every new idea presented here and continue reading it until it falls apart scientifically ...this will probably be in the first paragraph or two. It is is not the job of scientists to help mend a flawed hypothesis; only to critique it.

 

Agree +1. The vast majority of the theories presented here do not require the in depth knowledge of our experts; I can reject them as flawed! My last science education was in 1992-93 and my degrees are in law not in any science - but many of the propositions made are so lacking in scientific foundations that even I can see the weaknesses and gaps. I love the threads when I suddenly realise I am out of my depth and can sit back to read the opinions and the back-and-forths of the professional science heavy-weights. And these are too few and too far between - mainly, I think, due to the proliferation of the simply bonkers threads.

 

To Proximity who mentioned that we never do science here. You might like to look at Illussio's theory of everything a few months back - he, unlike many speculators, actually made testable predictions; so I did test them, here in my office and I filmed them and placed them on the site. Unsurprisingly,his theory that rotating bodies created an gravitational force that would not be present if the body was not rotating was easily disproved. And in years past there were many instances of actual experimentation and testing going on - much of this has been driven out by the mad speculators!

 

Most of the speculative theories do not easily avail themselves of a simple experimental test - this is not a coincidence. There is little mileage in making a new theory of gravitation in a macro/real world situation; anyone with a few weights and measures, a stopwatch, a smart phone, and a calculator can prove you wrong (and it is dreadfully easy to prove such a theory wrong). But if you wish to speculate about super high energy physics beyond the reach even of the LHC, about the reality of dark matter or energy, of the non-existence of quarks; then the proof is either highly technical and beyond all but half a dozen members, or is unavailable because we have not reached that area of experimentation yet.

[Arete]

A thought concerning the OP. The scientists here are not reluctant to accept new ideas; they are reluctant to accept wrong ideas. I'm sure swansont et al read every new idea presented here and continue reading it until it falls apart scientifically ...this will probably be in the first paragraph or two. It is is not the job of scientists to help mend a flawed hypothesis; only to critique it.

 

In the post of mine that Anilkumar replied to I listed the various ways that scientists do consider new ideas - e.g. reviewing papers, conferences, workshops, student mentorship, etc etc, etc.

 

In my experience, considering new ideas is such a big part of being in science that you have to make relatively quick decisions as to what is worth perusing and what isn't. If you hit a fundamental flaw in an idea, or find a glaring lack of recognition for existing data, you move on pretty quickly.

 

The specific objection Anilkumar had was that I brought up that I generally disregard unsolicited emails from people I don't know. It's a big red flag, as generally research ideas are valuable - so broadcasting them widely to people you don't know is kind of like having someone give you free money - you're skeptical from the outset. If I open said email and the first sentence makes little or no sense, it gets deleted without further evaluation. Anilkumar seemed to think that was unjust and unscientific.

 

I disagree - you are not being unjust by picking and choosing which hypothesis is worth evaluation, and it's not a scientist's job to carefully evaluate every nutbag garbled email claiming to revolutionize relativity, or evolution, etc. If their ideas were worthy, the author would/should have evaluated them carefully and presented them in a more formal format than a poorly structured, un-proofread email. If you can't be bothered to make more effort with your revolutionary idea's presentation, why does a given scientist "owe" you careful consideration? If it contains fundamental conceptual flaws, why does the scientist owe you careful explanation when basic research of available data would contradict your hypothesis?

 

All research, all researchers, are above all indebted to something that is sheer accident. It doesn't matter that they had a hypothesis, or that "they were looking for "X" and "found it." The fact remains that in virtually every case, something completely essential in their work and its success was put down to a chance occurrance. Period.

 

Whilst serendipity undoubtedly plays a role in all human endeavors, I disagree - you don't make a scientific discovery through dumb luck. Our lab doesn't have a bunch of scientists randomly pipetting reagents into tubes in the hope that something will eventually happen that we can publish. You start with an idea, you formulate a hypothesis, determine an experimental approach, design an experiment/sampling regime which minimizes bias, you carry it out and evaluate your results. Successfully conducting such a procedure is a deliberate action requiring planning, determination, experience, intelligence and a sprinkling of good fortune.

 

Characterizing such endeavors as "sheer plain stumbling, feeling around, trial-and-error rewarded by plain accident in most cases" is like saying an Olympic athlete won because they simply got lucky. Sure, the weather being to your advantage and the other guy getting over a cold are hypothetical serendipitous occurrences which contribute to success, but dedicated training, determination, nutrition, natural ability are critical to success.

[StringJunky]

Whilst serendipity undoubtedly plays a role in all human endeavors, I disagree - you don't make a scientific discovery through dumb luck.

 

Absolutely, It more or less takes a genius to see a ground-breaking correlation, or else, why wasn't it found before? Serendipity is a product of hindsight....shame we can't exploit it at the time.

[swansont]

In all of this discussion, I believe we are still without any kind of accounting of and sort of systematic rejection of ideas that ended up being correct. Some anecdotes were given, but (most) were debunked, leaving, at best, a very short list of ideas that may have fallen through the cracks for a time. Further, the idea proposed that scientists don't even entertain new ideas is trivially falsified by looking at the work that is regularly published in journals and preprint servers.In all of this discussion, I believe we are still without any kind of accounting of and sort of systematic rejection of ideas that ended up being correct. Some anecdotes were given, but (most) were debunked, leaving, at best, a very short list of ideas that may have fallen through the cracks for a time. Further, the idea proposed that scientists don't even entertain new ideas is trivially falsified by looking at the work that is regularly published in journals and preprint servers.

 

 

A thought concerning the OP. The scientists here are not reluctant to accept new ideas; they are reluctant to accept wrong ideas. I'm sure swansont et al read every new idea presented here and continue reading it until it falls apart scientifically ...this will probably be in the first paragraph or two. It is is not the job of scientists to help mend a flawed hypothesis; only to critique it.

 

If that. There are classes of ideas that merit no consideration whatsoever, e.g. any perpetual motion/over-unity device, which can be dismissed out of hand. Many others simply have too narrow a focus — they "fix" one area of physics, but completely ignore a wide spectrum of issues wherein they contradict experiment. So yes, it's often trivially easy to find a flaw. It's a much harder task to get the proponent to admit the flaws.

 

In the spirit of the OP, I wonder if anyone who has argued in favor of a topic in speculations would dare to answer why that is? Why are proponents of "fringe" ideas so reluctant to accept criticism? Because, to be honest, that's one big reason I can see for being reluctant to help someone with a new idea — they almost invariably react badly to criticism.

 

 

 

[Bignose]

In the spirit of the OP, I wonder if anyone who has argued in favor of a topic in speculations would dare to answer why that is? Why are proponents of "fringe" ideas so reluctant to accept criticism? Because, to be honest, that's one big reason I can see for being reluctant to help someone with a new idea — they almost invariably react badly to criticism.

 

This x1000. This is something I really have a hard time understanding. The majority of critiques in the Speculations section, if addressed, would make the speculative idea stronger. Sure, there are a few potshots and snark in there, though the mods don't let too much of that survive for long. But in the majority of cases, the criticisms are met with an abject reluctance in any way to even explore the critique. I just don't understand that.

 

One of my main regrets in life is that I'll never read everything I want to read and learn about. There is no idea that there isn't something more to learn about it.

 

These people who claim to have some nugget of knowledge that mankind doesn't yet have should also be doing as much as possible to learn about the nugget. Not just sitting on that nugget and calling it the greatest thing since sliced bread and being done with it. Heck, even sliced bread is improving... there was a recent news article about techniques to make bread that will stay not moldy for nearly 2 months instead of the 1 to 2 weeks it currently is.

[StringJunky]

Why are proponents of "fringe" ideas so reluctant to accept criticism?

 

That could be the title of the sister thread to this one.

[Anilkumar]

This is not how science is practised, therefore in your view science is practised incorrectly.

 

How do you account for its success?

 

It is the, scientific spirit, which is responsible for the success of Science. I attribute the success of Science to the spread of scientific spirit. If Humans had not adopted the scientific spirit, there would be no Science. It is this scientific spirit, to encourage innovation and exploration by giving scope to the Right ideas and correcting the wrong ideas.

 

 

proximity1, on 12 Dec 2012 - 00:20, said:

 

no actual science is done here

 

 

Certainly, propagation of what is already there, alone, is not doing Science. And discouragement of everything new is not doing Science. What is the meaning of ‘Establishing the old & Discouraging the new’? Are we ascertaining regimes here?

Logical discussion of prevailing concepts and new concepts, to understand them better, to bring out the drawbacks in them, is doing Science.

 

 

Ophiolite, on 12 Dec 2012 - 21:32, said:

1. There have been attacks on the methodology of science. These attacks have reflected a poor understanding of that methodology.

 

 

This is wrong and a terribly misleading fallacy. The methodology of Science has not been attacked anywhere in the thread. It should be stringently noted here that; the methodology of science has not been attacked, but instead the attempt to INSERT the foul, biased, ‘Behavior’ like Derision, being Inconsiderate, being Pejorative instead of conducting issue based discussion etc into the Methodology of Science has been attacked.

 

To simply put; the methodology of Science has never been attacked but the attempt to legitimize Derision, Inconsideration, etc as scientific methods to deal with new ideas, has been attacked. And shall be attacked, because those are not scientific methods. Those who are doing that are not doing Science. And they have no place in Science. They are ‘bad characters’ who are found in every field, who want to make the field into, a regime of their own. And those are not methodologies of Science but are tricks to pursue selfish bias.

 

The thinking that Derision & Being Inconsiderate are parts of the Methodology of Science is a very poor & bad understanding of the Methodology of Science.

 

 

proximity1, on 13 Dec 2012 - 00:06, said:

 

the problem with your rosy view of it depsite the too simplistic résumé that "shit happens", is that this shit is not the exception.

 

These are not exceptional cases.

 

‘It, happens.’ because there is Immorality. And this Immorality is not found in only exceptional beings. Every human being has his/her share of immorality. Only the percentages are different. And this immorality can only be countered by strict adherence to the scientific method. And ‘issue based discussion’ is a part of that methodology, that has the ability to address the nuisance of this Immorality.

 

I would like to say this here;

 

We cannot separate all the good human beings of the world on one side and all the evil beings on one side. Because, no person is absolutely good. And no person is absolutely evil.

 

If only there were evil people, somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? — The Gulag Archipelago (1958-1968) by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn [Russian activist, Nobel laureate, literature 1970]

 

Nobody would destroy a part of his or her own heart. Instead, they would strive to legitimize, the evil part of their heart, as good.

 

So, it is necessary that we make this discussion [Or any other discussion on the forum or elsewhere], strictly adhering to the scientific spirit, presenting Logical arguments to the best of our abilities with Honesty, Truthfulness, and Justice in our hearts. And not biased by Selfishness, Dogma, Prejudice and channelized by any kind of Regulations & Restrictions not concerned with scientific exploration and then must accept any conclusion we arrive at, selflessly. Only then, we will be doing Science, and be Just & Truthful. Moreover, it would amount to us all adopting the scientific spirit, if at all we wants to adopt it.

 

 

proximity1, on 13 Dec 2012 - 00:06, said:

this is when scientists are doing their work largely free of the worst influences of human nature as we currently see it exhibited

 

Humans, shall never be free of the worst influences of their weaknesses. Only, strict adherence to the scientific method and issue based open discussion, can keep our works free from those influences or can at least minimize them.

 

 

StringJunky, on 13 Dec 2012 - 22:53, said:

The scientists here are not reluctant to accept new ideas; they are reluctant to accept wrong ideas.

 

This is another misleading fallacy, from the pack, repeated for the n^th time.

 

Who has asked for the acceptance of wrong ideas?

 

 

 

StringJunky, on 13 Dec 2012 - 22:53, said:

It is is not the job of scientists to help mend a flawed hypothesis; only to critique it.

 

From which rule of the scientific spirit, do we come to this great noble & scientific conclusion?

 

I won’t give any rep to this. I think this warrants banning; not from this forum, but from Science.

 

Every scientific theory, before it comes to be said as scientific; gets [the flaws in it] mended by several contributors. Even now there are flaws in our accepted theories and are being constantly discussed.

 

And certain new hypotheses are so flawed that, they cannot be mended. There, there is high probability that, the premises that the person has derived her conclusions from are wrong. There what is to be done is, mend the premises, by educating her. This is how Science gets proliferated.

 

People seem to think that Science, is the sole property of some. No.

 

Science is the Realm of those who are Scientific in their demeanor.

 

A child who refuses to believe but instead wants to Think logically and Reason, is being scientific, so is a Scientist.

 

A Scientist however high up in the hierarchy of the field of Science; whose any decisions are plagued by human weaknesses, is not being scientific, so is not being a Scientist in that particular case.

 

Logical thinking & Reasoning, is the basic requirement of a person who wants to do Science.

 

In addition, accepting that which stands up the Logical scrutiny, is also in the scientific spirit. If something is denied its place by not having a scientific approach towards it, then one is not being scientific.

 

 

imatfaal, on 14 Dec 2012 - 00:10, said:

 

I did test them, here in my office and I filmed them and placed them on the site. Unsurprisingly,his theory that rotating bodies created an gravitational force that would not be present if the body was not rotating was easily disproved. And in years past there were many instances of actual experimentation and testing going on

 

That’s great of you.

 

 

Arete, on 14 Dec 2012 - 00:17, said:

 

The specific objection Anilkumar had was that I brought up that I generally disregard unsolicited emails from people I don't know.

 

If I open said email and the first sentence makes little or no sense, it gets deleted without further evaluation. Anilkumar seemed to think that was unjust and unscientific.

 

 

I said this;

 

Anilkumar, on 04 Sept 2012 - 14:28, said:

And I take this opportunity to say that it is wrong to send unsolicited e-mails, to approach busy scientists, it is not humane, it is criminal injustice & a hindrance to scientific progress.

 

 

Arete, on 14 Dec 2012 - 00:17, said:

 

generally research ideas are valuable - so broadcasting them widely to people you don't know is kind of like having someone give you free money - you're skeptical from the outset.

 

Some people don’t think Science is money. They think it is enlightenment, knowledge that needs to be refined and spread. Read below;

 

In 1924, Satyendra Nath Bose wrote a paper deriving Planck's quantum radiation law without any reference to classical physics by using a novel way of counting states with identical particles. This paper titled “Planck’s Law and the Light-Quantum Hypothesis,” was seminal in creating the very important field of quantum statistics.

 

Journals refused to publish it, because they said it was not acceptable.

 

The referee, at the London-based journal named ‘Philosophical Magazine’, rejected it.

 

Frustrated, Bose sent his paper to Albert Einstein. He wrote;

 

“I have ventured to send you the accompanying article for your perusal and opinion. I am anxious to know what you think of it… I do not know sufficient German to translate the paper. If you think the paper worth publication I shall be grateful if you arrange for its publication in Zeitschrift fur Physik. Though a complete stranger to you, I do not feel any hesitation in making such a request.”

 

Einstein, recognizing the importance of the paper, agreed there wasn't a mistake but it was the truth, translated it into German himself and submitted it on Bose's behalf to the prestigious Zeitschrift für Physik, the very paper that had been rejected by a referee, at the London-based journal named ‘Philosophical Magazine’.

 

 

swansont, on 14 Dec 2012 - 03:06, said:

but (most) were debunked,

 

Which all were debunked?

 

 

Bignose, on 14 Dec 2012 - 03:32, said:

These people who claim to have some nugget of knowledge that mankind doesn't yet have should also be doing as much as possible to learn about the nugget. Not just sitting on that nugget and calling it the greatest thing

 

Instead of asking people to learn about their nugget, the right approach or the scientific method to scrutinize a new idea is to make the wrong in it, evident.

 

On this forum, when a person proved a point in a logical, falsifiable, experimental, method; it has been evaded. I have seen that.

 

 

------------ 0000000 ------------

 

 

This thread has long back shown and concluded that Scientists are not devoid of human weaknesses. I am not saying this. People who did some real science, and were true scientists with true scientific spirit in their hearts, who were victimized by those unscientific human weaknesses, have said it. And those human weaknesses have marred Science in the past and shall continue to do so as long as, weaknesses in human beings exist.

 

Only misleading fallacies are repeatedly being brought up now, on the thread, to save face, to falsely create the delusion that this thread has not concluded.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Anilkumar

[Arete]

Some people don’t think Science is money. They think it is enlightenment, knowledge that needs to be refined and spread. Read below;

 

 

Err, neither do I. It's an analogy. Good ideas in science are VALUABLE - I assume you'll agree that good scientific ideas are valuable right? If someone offers me an item of value, for nothing, I'm skeptical.

[swansont]

 

Which all were debunked?

 

 

 

That Galileo, Wegener, Whittle and Noether's ideas were not accepted. The others listed may or may not have merit; most names were stated without any support by studiot.

 

 

I'm confident in your ability to back through the thread and find these bits of discussion.

[proximity1]

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

 

 

for the best, most comprehensive, answer I have so far seen, see

 

The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next

 

(below, by order of relevance), e.g. :

 

Chapter 19: How Science Really Works (p. 332)

 

Chapter 17: What Is Science? (p. 289)

 

and

 

Chapter 20: What We Can Do For Science (p. 349)

Edited March 17, 2013 by proximity1