Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?

studiot · August 31, 2012

However there are those inquirers whose posts.........

As I understand the english language "inquirers" means someone who is asking a question, not answering one.

proximity1 · September 1, 2012

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.

To stay within the topic of this thread, rather than make it a general discussion of the merits of Kupiec's work, I'll just reply that IF his work is eventually accepted and replaces, where it is pertinent, now-standard theory, then his case does, indeed, present us with a prime example of scientists showing themselves remarkably resistant to new theory---experimentally tested and peer-reviewed---which seriously challenges and overturns some of the current theory just as the OP has remarked above.

RE: " He's never offered as an overthrow to species concepts and pop-gen principles in peer review to my knowledge." He may never have done so in the way that you intend by that remark; I don't know. But his work is done at the Centre Cavalliès of the Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris; and published in peer-reviewed science journals of the best quality.

I haven't read them but I'd be very much interested to read Ernst Mayr's One Long Argument, The Growth of Biological Thought and What Evolution Is . So those are now on my reading list.

By the way, Kupiec's publisher of L'origine des individus , Fayard (Series: "Le Temps des Sciences") also publishes Mayr's French edition of The Growth of Biological Thought, Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance and This is Biology. Interesting coincidence, that.

Edited September 1, 2012 by proximity1

nec209 · September 1, 2012

Why hot topic like anti-gravity ,wormholes ,warp drive ,levatation is like asking cave man explain logic gates works and CPU .

That is why know one has even pip dream idea on board on even if this real or not or even going about this on to see if this can even be real.

proximity1 · September 2, 2012

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.

What, I ask, is your view of the import of this, from Darwin's letter to Joseph Hooker, 24 December, 1856, cited (in the English original from The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, (Darwin, F., 1877, London, John Murray; at page 88 of volume 2) ?:

"It is really laughable to see what different ideas are prominent in various naturalists' minds, when they speak of 'species'; in some, resemblance is everything and descent of little weight--in some, resemblance seems to go for nothing, and Creation the reigning idea--in some, sterility an unfailing test, with others it is not worth a farthing. It all comes, I believe, from trying to define the indefinable."

Arete · September 2, 2012

What, I ask, is your view of the import of this, from Darwin's letter to Joseph Hooker, 24 December, 1856, cited (in the English original from The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, (Darwin, F., 1877, London, John Murray; at page 88 of volume 2) ?:

"It is really laughable to see what different ideas are prominent in various naturalists' minds, when they speak of 'species'; in some, resemblance is everything and descent of little weight--in some, resemblance seems to go for nothing, and Creation the reigning idea--in some, sterility an unfailing test, with others it is not worth a farthing. It all comes, I believe, from trying to define the indefinable."

If you are interested in Darwin's thoughts on the species problem, have a read through the first link in the post you quoted. It contains an exhaustive list of Darwin quotes on the topic, along with commentary from Ernst Mayr.

If you look at the considerable amount of thought Darwin put into the species problem, it seems ignorant of these efforts of his to characterize his attitude on the paradox as in any way dismissive, and again, to insist on the abolishment of the Linnaean system of classification seems ignorant of the extensive body of work which has been undertaken to reconcile it with genetics and evolutionary biology.

A quick literature search on Kupiec shows he has published extensively on intracellular mechanisms, but has not published broadly on speciation, population genetics or evolutionary biology - these don't appear to be his fields of expertise, yet his theory proposes the overthrow of many fundamental aspects of these fields without really offering an alternative explanation for much of the observed phenomena supporting current paradigms: A comprehensive critique beyond what could be conveyed in a forum post is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7251/full/460035a.html which I thoroughly agree with.

This is also getting thoroughly off topic and is probably worth a thread split if you wish to discuss this specific example further.

proximity1 · September 2, 2012

If you are interested in Darwin's thoughts on the species problem, have a read through the first link in the post you quoted. It contains an exhaustive list of Darwin quotes on the topic, along with commentary from Ernst Mayr.

If you look at the considerable amount of thought Darwin put into the species problem, it seems ignorant of these efforts of his to characterize his attitude on the paradox as in any way dismissive, and again, to insist on the abolishment of the Linnaean system of classification seems ignorant of the extensive body of work which has been undertaken to reconcile it with genetics and evolutionary biology.

A quick literature search on Kupiec shows he has published extensively on intracellular mechanisms, but has not published broadly on speciation, population genetics or evolutionary biology - these don't appear to be his fields of expertise, yet his theory proposes the overthrow of many fundamental aspects of these fields without really offering an alternative explanation for much of the observed phenomena supporting current paradigms: A comprehensive critique beyond what could be conveyed in a forum post is here: http://www.nature.co...ll/460035a.html which I thoroughly agree with.

This is also getting thoroughly off topic and is probably worth a thread split if you wish to discuss this specific example further.

RE: ... " worth a thread split if you wish to discuss this specific example further" ...

I don't know, what do you think about it? A thread-split implies creating a new thread and, unless I'm mistaken, that's "above my pay-grade" at the moment. I'm a very "newbie"--not even 30 posts to my credit/discredit.

RE: ..." have a read through the first link in the post you quoted" ....

I shall do that. Thank you. (BTW, it doesn't include the letter to Hooker, unless I missed it.)

And, I'll read the hyper-link to Nature you posted. Thank you, too, for that. (EDITED TO ADD: A brilliant recommendation, that one. I very much appreciate your pointing to it. I'll get it later in the week, when I'm at a library with free, direct access to Nature 's archive. The same holds for the other two main links you present, the PNAS and the one to an article by Stephen J. Gould.)

I don't know it for an absolute fact, but, if I had a farm, I'd bet it on the proposition that Kupiec has not only read but pored over every word ever published by Darwin. For a clear appreciation of Darwin's work and importance, though it's only my amateur's opinion, I believe Kupiec has no living peer.

I'm the first to admit my limitations on knowledge in this area. I think that now it's time that you do some of that because, unless you've read in some form (English or French are the two currently published editions) The Origin of Individuals (2009, World Scientific Publishers, Singapore), then I think you go too far in this assertion:

"yet his theory proposes the overthrow of many fundamental aspects of these fields without really offering an alternative explanation for much of the observed phenomena supporting current paradigms".

In fact, he does indeed propose detailed alternative explanations for the observed phenomena which supposedly support (only) current paradigms (and he's aware that he must, in doing so, take account of Mayr's arguments, among others, which he describes and critiques). In a word, his alternative explanation he calls "ontophylogenesis", but, in deference to your point about splitting the thread, which I agree is better than persuing these points here, I refrain from going on in any descrîption of the details of his alternatives. BTW, I sent Kupiec an e-mail with a link to this discussion thread. Apparently, he has more pressing things to do than read or participate here. That doesn't really surprise me. He's now written a major work setting out his views in the non-specialist press, that would be his The Origin of Individuals (2009, World Scientific Publishers, Singapore) and is co-author, with Pierre Sonigo, of Ni Dieu ni gène , (Editions du Seuil, Paris, 2000). So, if in his opinion, anyone really interested in his work could read these rather than impose on him to defend it here, I can't really blame him for that.

The Darwin citation, by the way, is in another text, (footnote, page 12) of L'ontophylogenèse: Evolution des espèces et développement de l'individu (April, 2012, Editions Quae, Versailles) a transcript of an oral presentation from 2011.

If you care to, please open a thread. I cannot do that. If you prefer not to, "no salesman will call", I won't take it amiss in the least. You're an expert in the field. I'm a complete (?) amateur.

Edited September 2, 2012 by proximity1

Ringer · September 3, 2012

Einstein was correct, God does not play dice. God plays billiards, and the Big Bang was his break.- C.M.T

[etc.]

There is so much wrong with this my head hurts.

Anilkumar · September 4, 2012

It is extremely justifiable and it is scientific practice. . .

You fail to recognize that in the whole of this thread, this post;

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.

was,

one truthful confession on behalf of the Reluctant. The post truthfully tells that the human nature is the cause of Reluctance. And human nature like Prejudice, cannot be scientific. It can lead to losses. How? I shall discuss below.

. . . Nothing is correct without evidence. . .

I didn't say anything that negates this.

. . . 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.

You will see why such assumption can go wrong, below. There is no straw-man here.

. . . 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?. . .

How would I know that you are saying "pink elephants are running through your room", if by applying your [Non]scientific formula that 'Most new theories are wrong so one shouldn't read them' and so I don't even read your theory?

. . . 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. . .

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. . .

I would not; because, one who understands Logic, should know that;

Logic cannot deal with Belief and Belief cannot deal with Logic. Their languages are alien to each other.

Moreover, if in a logical debate, I were unable to convince, then I would consider my reasoning, inadequate.

. . . it is none of our jobs . . .

The person with this attitude creates soldiers under a dictator who is in need of people who outsource their Logical thinking to someone else and keep the holy duty of following faithfully to themselves.

Science is also about building better thinking abilities, to create a better society. If Logical thinking is not encouraged even God cannot evolve us. This is the precise reason why dictators have molested humanity time and again; because of attitudes like this. No person or thing in this Universe, can subjugate me, even with a gun pointed at my temple, leave aside the wide acceptance of a theory or the awesome credentials of an expert, or the crap dogmas created by a society swept away by glitterati or the high podium from which something is proclaimed. My logical thinking does not permit me to be subjugated.

Therefore it is necessary to encourage Logical thinking by attending it. It increases awareness. It can build better societies. Why were Autocracies replaced by Democracies? Was it not because of increased awareness due to logical thinking? It must be encouraged. It is our job. And this Forum is a great step towards that.

. . . to help them. . .

I would do it to help myself first. Every person who thinks logically is helping herself & everyone else. I go to an expert with my logically derived conclusion, to find out if she can be of help to decide whether I am right or wrong. Every new idea, be it the reinventing of the wheel by a child or a wrong idea of the Unknowing or exploring alternatives, judging that a crisis exists, to long-held obvious-seeming assumptions; is right in this context. They need to be respected. Why can we not just deal with them properly, civilly, and caringly as we deal with any issue to resolve it, which would ultimately lead us to spreading education or keeping the doors open to invite new ideas or encourage innovativeness. It is the holy duty of every knowledgeable person to segregate the wrong from the right, even if it comes from the most impertinent person so that society can know what to choose and what not to.

. . . That being said it seems the majority of people on this forum use their free time to do . . . They help people explore scientific questions and ideas.

I have been appreciative of their generosity. Read Post#90 on this thread.

. . . to do exactly what you are complaining they do not do. . .

We are discussing on the Reluctance towards new ideas. Even on this forum, which is compassionately doing discussions on scientific matters, [This is the only forum I know in whole of this world which has an exclusive section to discuss new ideas. I haven't bothered to check for others, because this suffices my needs] And the knowledgeable people on this forum are sparing their time to benevolently address the issues here.

Why then, even here, there is reluctance in taking a look at new ideas?

. . . The problem is when people know nothing about the areas they are making "discoveries that will change the entire field".

It becomes a problem depending upon how you see it. I see it as "A person's choosing the Innovative & Critical path to Learn" in contrast to "Faithful acceptance". And the former is the best, why? I will reason later.

Among the Learners, there are three main types [There could be others.]; and they are:

Those who;

Choose the Innovative & Critical path [Asking, why can't it be the other way? Saying, what if I make it this way?].
Accept, because they see it is amply obvious.
Accept, even though they can't see it is obvious because they do not want to question a widely accepted theory.

Thomas Kuhn thought, [the gist below];

Some people are not objective and independent thinkers. They are Conservative individuals who accept what they are taught and apply their knowledge to solving the problems that the prevailing theories dictate. Most are, in essence, puzzle-solvers who aim to discover what they already know in advance - "The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly."

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Considers Thomas Kuhn as the most influential philosophers of science of the twentieth century. His 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most cited academic books of all time.

I consider the first method the best, because being Innovative & Critical, helps widen Thinking, which itself leads to development of Science.

. . . 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.

This is one solid and amply sufficient reason for us to be not Reluctant to new ideas. And also that we should encourage Innovativeness by dealing with it un-Reluctantly.

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

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

Can you not use words like Unknowing etc in place of Cranks etc? Or do you derive sadistic pleasure by being pejorative.

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

Does Science mean looking at only one thing? This really is a thought of the Cra… [err. . . No, I don't want to be sadistic. Is Sadism contagious?!] unknowing.

Authoritarians want us to look at what they decide we should look at, without asking any questions.

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

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

Thanks Studiot. It is long partly because I replied multiple posts at a time. And partly because sometimes it takes me more words to say what I really want to say correctly. I am sorry for that.

Looking back, historically, the Sadists, Cult followers with their Authoritarian tricks have never been successful, because Humanity is an evolving kind.

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

Hello Swansont;

Your gracious & truthful way of placing arguments, addressing only the subject and not the person, which everyone should imbibe, fills my heart with respect and love. It feels like an Oasis in a Desert full of attacks on the person not the subject, cult following and tricking.

I am sure Studiot was pointing towards this factor when he posted this;

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

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

. . . 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. . .

Let me clarify why it is not wrong. Though you did not say that there is reluctance even to look at new ideas nor it is mentioned in OP. However, I think this discussion would be incomplete if it addresses only the Reluctance towards acceptance, because the Reluctance is not simply confined to mere acceptance but as you said, it may be so, it is actually towards even looking at new ideas. Therefore, I added that part.

. . . 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. . .

Yes, it is a good scientific model. Nobody has objected to it until now. But;

The conclusion derived/interpretation by this model that one should be Reluctant, to even look at all new ideas, is unscientific & absolutely wrong. Reluctance is a human reaction generated due to apathy, which in turn is generated due to an immature response of how that model affects one's life.

Like for Fire; by empirical observation, we have a model: All Fire burns. Then we have a human reaction to it; Be Reluctant to go near it. That is fear; like Reluctance, a human nature. However, it leads to losses. If we were Reluctant to go near fire, we would lose the benefit it gives us. We got to harvest its uses by getting the knowledge of how to handle it.

Now similarly, if for example the wrong ideas constitute 99% of all new ideas, then 1% of them are genuine. Now if we do not look into new ideas due to Reluctance, are we not loosing those 1% genuine ideas? Are we not disregarding Innovativeness? Are we not discouraging the Innovative? This is a big blow to spreading of the scientific spirit.

We have to get the knowledge of how to handle Raw Innovativeness and benefit from it. Reluctance is not a good appropriate response.

. . . 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. . .

Nobody is advocating for immediate adoption of a new idea. The demand is for a caring look into it. [That is why I added that Reluctance is not simply confined to mere acceptance, it is actually towards even simply looking at new ideas.]

. . . 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. . .

. . . 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. . .

. . . they're reluctant to wade through reams of garbage clogging their e-mail inboxes.

. . . 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. . .

. . . 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. . .

. . . 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. . .

. . . 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. . .

Nobody is advocating here;

Approaching scientists about some new idea who have limited time to do their work.
Sending unsolicited e-mails.

There is good as well as bad in every field. The question we are discussing here is, if there is more number of wrong doers, is it justified to punish everybody.

If people are disturbing Scientists/Experts by Approaching them about some new idea who have limited time to do their work and by sending unsolicited e-mails, they are making a mistake. But on that pretext if Scientists/Experts/Knowledgeable are Reluctant to verify all new ideas then they are doing a bigger mistake. This is not a Tit for tat game. Isn't there a difference between the unknowing who commit those mistakes and the Knowledgeable? Should we not educate the unknowing, find ways to handle them, instead of reacting in a wrong way?

One mistake is not an answer to another mistake.

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

No. Empirical evidence is also a Reason/one among the reasons/a part of the reasoning process.

. . . Such as?

Such as, that 'Gravity is a consequence of the space-time curvature'.

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

. . . In my experience, as a scientist, scientists are very open to new ideas. They aren't open to pages and pages of word salad.

This delusive-ly misleads the discussion.

How & when did we change from,

Reluctant to new ideas, to

very open to new ideas.

Are the positive marks given to this post for making this slick change?

Is this Reasoning?

Or tricking?

Nobody is asking here anybody to be open to bad ideas. We got into this debate because it was staunchly stated through several posts by several members that;

There is Reluctance to new ideas on the basis that lots of new ideas are wrong ideas, which is the Truth. And so I replied;

It is wrong to be Reluctant to new ideas on the basis that lots of new ideas are wrong ideas.

If debates are conducted to arrive at solutions to issues, one needs to place arguments truthfully.

I added that the Reluctance is not limited to Acceptance alone; it is there even to take a look at new ideas. And it was truthfully agreed on that part also by both parties. Now the question is;

Whether it is justified in being Reluctant to new ideas on the basis that lots of new ideas are wrong ideas?

The debate is now on whether one should be Reluctant to new ideas or not.

But all of a sudden you say scientists are very open to new ideas.

So we all should go home? No dispute!

Or debate on that Lie?

I don't do futile discussions.

There are people, though numbered few, who are not individually reluctant to new ideas. They are ready to deal with them sympathetically. We are not discussing that here. However, there is a big Reluctance towards new ideas because lots of them are wrong ideas. We are discussing on that. We are further discussing whether that Reluctance is justified or not.

When you said that there is Reluctance, I felt there is a ray of hope and this forum has provided an opportunity, we could do something about that and change it. Now you are changing track to conceal it. What is the purpose of participating in this discussion? Anyhow, we are living with that Reluctance. Even great Scientists, thinkers and inventors have endured it while trying to introduce their new ideas.

. . . 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. . .

All of the current Science that has come into being, was not paid for. It came due to the innovativeness of human beings. And that innovativeness itself is now being disregarded because one is not paid for to scrutinize it or because most of it is wrong? New ideas are the heart of Science. It is where Science comes from. Perusal of new ideas is equally important as a Research is for Science. Reluctance should not be there to examine any new idea, whether it is wrong or genuine, because if Science becomes Reluctant to look at new ideas on the pretext that most of them are wrong it is the end of quest for Truth.

Scrutinizing new ideas and giving reasons for their acceptance or rejection is part of Science/scientific activity/scientific progress. It should not be neglected on the pretext that most of the new ideas are wrong. It is equally wrong as the unsolicited emails. One wrong does not correct another wrong.

. . . If you or anyone else wants their ideas evaluated by the scientific community, they're worth putting in the correct format. . .

I have not sent one single unsolicited email in my life regarding any new idea or anything else. I have not disturbed one single Scientist for one second by approaching her about some new idea. For me this forum is heaven on earth. Because there are heavenly people here. It satiates my intellectual needs. I post all my new ideas here. I don't need anything else. I see such discussion forums as the new age hubs of Scientific Innovation and look forward to when a new theory will be found on such forums, if I am not exaggerating. Truth does not arrive after choosing its venues. It comes when it finds the right atmosphere anywhere.

I request all people with new ideas to come here and request the compassionate Experts to take a look, and not to disturb anybody for that sake. Moreover, simultaneously I beg all the people on this forum to take a benevolent look into new ideas. 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.

I sympathize with those Experts/Scientists who face this unruly trouble.

The best thing to do with a new idea is to discuss with knowledgeable people on an appointed time or on a forum like this. But the purpose of this forum gets defeated too; when Reluctance to new ideas plays its role here too. New ideas must be given a look and reasoned. This forum should not become a Preaching place. It should encourage innovativeness, by giving a Non-Reluctant platform to scrutinize new ideas. This would also help stop the above discussed menaces.

. . . Why are you randomly capitalizing words? . . .

I do it when I want a word to standout and become visually distinct in a sentence, something like focusing light on a single person or part on a stage. Like: This is Arete. Arete is an Expert on Biology. Is it irksome? I could stop, if it is.

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

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

That's exactly how science should be. . .

There is a subtle matter here, which if not taken care of, will go out of the hands of this honest discussion.

When you said "That's exactly how it should be" you are pointing out that, one should be 'Critically Investigative' about new ideas.

Yes, it is absolutely true. But there is a very big & vital difference here.

When we say we must be investigative; what we are actually doing/saying is; we are actually picking the new idea into our hands [not literally] and then investigating it. But here, what we are discussing is;

The Reluctance to picking itself, that new idea. I.E. the Lack of the Enthusiasm itself, to investigate new ideas.

This Lack of Enthusiasm to investigate new ideas is nothing but the Lack of Enthusiasm to do Science itself. Because,

Science is nothing but the Enthusiasm to Investigate new ideas. So Science must encourage innovativeness by being Enthusiastic about new ideas, i.e. not being Reluctant to new ideas. That would lead to the development of Science.

. . . 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.

Yes, educating the innovative to construct good theories is absolutely correct. But this is totally different from being Reluctant to new theories. If Innovation is disregarded with Reluctance, the very motive force behind scientific thought is being disregarded.

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

Einstein was correct, God does not play dice. God plays billiards, and the Big Bang was his break.- C.M.T.

The deepest questions can not be answered by science;

Where did I come from? What powers existence? You see thee are two and only two answers, either our existence is based on a perpetual motion machine which violates the laws in our universe so there must be something forever bigger or there is a God, a conscious being. So either non-intelligent or intelligent. I like the smart way but that is just me being selfish, living forever in love...who wouldn't want that.

I believe that I understand the universe in three dimensions, in which time, space and the process that generates gravitation are point of origin actions of a process of wave generation and alignment. I cold called Lawerence Krauss and he was polite and gave me one minute of his time. I took :77 sec and then there was silence, if felt dead air awkward, and finally he said; " if you're right then the rest of us are wrong and waisted our lives so you can't be right." and then he hung up the phone.

Today science, astrophysics and Theoritical Physics is no closer to understanding the universe than they were when they looked up at sky 10,000 years ago.

By contemplating the words of God in the bible, we can summize that time is variable, a thousand years is like a day, we are told that the Earth is a circle and that we were told that from the beginning. The most man can live is 120 years, with Eve, God shows that science can take a rib cell and create another being. Maybe he is showing us the cell to use to repair ourselves. Marriage and monogamy help propagate the species disease free.

So it boils down to this, did man create God as one hypothesis of many to explain the universe, or did God create man with the free will to discover, to question, to learn that the real answers are not phusocal answers bit are spiritual and they all get answered by helpIng one another out of unselfish love?

If God created the universe and the universe glorifies him (psalm 19), and he has shown the world who he is, Father, Son and Holy spirit, then I might think that the universe might have a Trinitarian relationship for life to exist.

One universe three dimensions

Atoms come in three densities, solid, liquid and gas.

Atons come with three structures, protons, nutrons and elections

Protons and Netrons can be broken down into three quarks each.

Within mass there are three forces, strong, weak and electromagnetic fields.

As mass and energy decay into monopole gravitational waves three density dependent actions are generated, time, space and gravity which are direct results of mass and energy decay.

Three colors can make all the colors, third planet.

On and on. So do you really think we have the mental capacity to put all that together and then create God to match it?

If we did?' We could create a universe and then watch as the ones we love question our existence... LOL

This is not the subject of the OP.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Anilkumar

**imatfaal** · September 4, 2012

!

Moderator Note

Nobrainer

Your interlude concerning God playing billiards and other comments has been split off to a thread in Speculations. Please do not hijack threads with off-topic rambling.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68776-god-plays-billiards/

Do not continue to take this thread off topic by responding to this moderation within the thread - report this post or send a PM to staff.

studiot · September 4, 2012

Hello Anilkumar,

Are you taking your cue from Pilgrim's Progress?

The style is strangely reminiscent.

I have already answered Swansont's misreading of my last post.

I was trying (apparantly not very successfully) to refer to those who start threads (inquirers) with mischief aforethought.

Again your long post contained much of worth, with measured and polite responses to the knee jerk reactions of others.

Keep at it.

**swansont** · September 4, 2012

Let me clarify why it is not wrong. Though you did not say that there is reluctance even to look at new ideas nor it is mentioned in OP. However, I think this discussion would be incomplete if it addresses only the Reluctance towards acceptance, because the Reluctance is not simply confined to mere acceptance but as you said, it may be so, it is actually towards even looking at new ideas. Therefore, I added that part.

Yes, you added it. Since I had not addressed that, you cannot assume that I hold a particular position on it. Thus, attacking a straw man of my position is wrong.

Yes, it is a good scientific model. Nobody has objected to it until now. But;

The conclusion derived/interpretation by this model that one should be Reluctant, to even look at all new ideas, is unscientific & absolutely wrong. Reluctance is a human reaction generated due to apathy, which in turn is generated due to an immature response of how that model affects one's life.

Like for Fire; by empirical observation, we have a model: All Fire burns. Then we have a human reaction to it; Be Reluctant to go near it. That is fear; like Reluctance, a human nature. However, it leads to losses. If we were Reluctant to go near fire, we would lose the benefit it gives us. We got to harvest its uses by getting the knowledge of how to handle it.

Now similarly, if for example the wrong ideas constitute 99% of all new ideas, then 1% of them are genuine. Now if we do not look into new ideas due to Reluctance, are we not loosing those 1% genuine ideas? Are we not disregarding Innovativeness? Are we not discouraging the Innovative? This is a big blow to spreading of the scientific spirit.

We have to get the knowledge of how to handle Raw Innovativeness and benefit from it. Reluctance is not a good appropriate response.

Nobody is advocating for immediate adoption of a new idea. The demand is for a caring look into it. [That is why I added that Reluctance is not simply confined to mere acceptance, it is actually towards even simply looking at new ideas.]

The opposite of reluctance is eagerness. Why should we be eager to accept new, untested and half-formed ideas?

Nobody is advocating here;

Approaching scientists about some new idea who have limited time to do their work.

Sending unsolicited e-mails.

There is good as well as bad in every field. The question we are discussing here is, if there is more number of wrong doers, is it justified to punish everybody.

If people are disturbing Scientists/Experts by Approaching them about some new idea who have limited time to do their work and by sending unsolicited e-mails, they are making a mistake. But on that pretext if Scientists/Experts/Knowledgeable are Reluctant to verify all new ideas then they are doing a bigger mistake. This is not a Tit for tat game. Isn't there a difference between the unknowing who commit those mistakes and the Knowledgeable? Should we not educate the unknowing, find ways to handle them, instead of reacting in a wrong way?

One mistake is not an answer to another mistake.

Then there is no problem. New ideas are proposed and considered all the time. However, the ones that are are, generally speaking, properly formulated with some degree of rigor, i.e. supporting mathematics and models.

No. Empirical evidence is also a Reason/one among the reasons/a part of the reasoning process.

Reasoning is not the same as empirical data. Quantum mechanics, for example, was not introduced by reasoning; many think it counterintuitive.

Such as, that 'Gravity is a consequence of the space-time curvature'.

You would have to demonstrate that the idea is actually false for that to be an example. The bottom line is that the model works, and quite well. But that's for the other thread on the topic.

Ringer · September 5, 2012

You fail to recognize that in the whole of this thread, this post;

was,

one truthful confession on behalf of the Reluctant. The post truthfully tells that the human nature is the cause of Reluctance. And human nature like Prejudice, cannot be scientific. It can lead to losses. How? I shall discuss below.

Again, he never said anything about being reluctant to read or address the ideas. Note also that by saying that was the one truthful confession it can be inferred are believe the rest of of are trying to be deceitful in some way.

Creating a false equivalence between reluctance to accept new ideas and prejudice is not a great way to begin a logical argument.

I didn't say anything that negates this.

Then you accept that we shouldn't begin to accept ideas without evidence?

You will see why such assumption can go wrong, below. There is no straw-man here.

It was a straw-man, you saying it is not doesn't make it any less of a logical fallacy.

How would I know that you are saying "pink elephants are running through your room", if by applying your [Non]scientific formula that 'Most new theories are wrong so one shouldn't read them' and so I don't even read your theory?

So let me see if I'm following you here. You say you are going to show me why my assumption is incorrect by 1.) adding non before scientific to try to make it seem like I'm incorrect without having to actually argue your case 2.) using the same straw-man about not even reading new ideas. Man you sure showed me. . .

I would not; because, one who understands Logic, should know that;

Logic cannot deal with Belief and Belief cannot deal with Logic. Their languages are alien to each other.

Moreover, if in a logical debate, I were unable to convince, then I would consider my reasoning, inadequate.

So you are saying some ideas shouldn't be considered within science?

The person with this attitude creates soldiers under a dictator who is in need of people who outsource their Logical thinking to someone else and keep the holy duty of following faithfully to themselves.

Come on, slippery-slope fallacy already?

Science is also about building better thinking abilities, to create a better society. . .

I'm going to go ahead and skip this part because I don't see what it has to do with the discussion at hand.

We are discussing on the Reluctance towards new ideas. Even on this forum, which is compassionately doing discussions on scientific matters, [This is the only forum I know in whole of this world which has an exclusive section to discuss new ideas. I haven't bothered to check for others, because this suffices my needs] And the knowledgeable people on this forum are sparing their time to benevolently address the issues here.

Why then, even here, there is reluctance in taking a look at new ideas?

There isn't a reluctance to look at them, and if there was those pages of responses in the speculations forums must be about nothing. If that were true a large number of us should be banned for constantly derailing threads.

It becomes a problem depending upon how you see it. I see it as "A person's choosing the Innovative & Critical path to Learn" in contrast to "Faithful acceptance". And the former is the best, why? I will reason later.

I see it as a person trying to answer questions he or she doesn't understand or is already answered. If I wrote a book about how everyone's ideas about Shakespeare's writings were wrong and I am the only one who sees what they really are even though I have never read any Shakespeare other than cliff notes I would be a laughing stock.

padren · September 9, 2012

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.

This is an example of an idea that - as an absolute amateur myself - I would be exceptionally reluctant to read up on, because frankly the sheer amount of ridiculousness in the idea suggests that "Either A) you are misrepresenting Kupiec B) Kupiec's contention is poorly articulated yet somehow carries a hidden grain of genius or C) Kupiec's contention is poorly articulated because it's idiotic drivel"

I say this because the claim that cells, tissue and organs "rather exactly mirror" external environmental relationships is dead wrong - I do not have wild livers breeding, competing and killing each other within my body, nor can any cellular mutation that leads to a momentary improvement in function actually pass those improvements on - mutations in liver cells don't migrate down into the reproductive genes of the host.

Now, I'm not a scientist, but I would generally give a person making that claim about 30 seconds to see if they can say something that would clarify the statement in a manner that is coherent, but not longer if the initial claim is already that inarticulate. I hear enough incoherent theories in a day (and I'm a laymen) that more than 30 seconds would become debilitating after a while. If there is scientific genius in the idea, then someone else will eventually discover it who is capable of articulating it, and if not then there's no loss.

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?

What the heck does quantum unpredictability have to do with this at all? Who claims unpredictable quantum randomness results in anything inconsistent with deterministic operations at all, whether in biology or anywhere else in nature?

The only thing that quantum unpredictability results in is you don't know which set of deterministic outcomes will be observed, and the possibility that multiple potential outcomes may interfere with each other (such as double slit experiment) but I still don't see how it applies.

If a theory demonstrated how particles maintaining quantum superpositions result in non-classically observed outcomes within biology I would find it very interesting - mostly because quantum computing requires huge amounts of energy to "isolate" particles from ambient heat and other factors that would reduce it to a classical single set of results and if this occurs in biological nature in some demonstrable way amongst the heat density and pressure of a living organism I'd love to know more.

I won't hold my breath - not because I am dismissive of the idea - I am dismissive of the proponent's capacity to articulate any useful information... if the proponent fails then they can either get their thoughts together and re-propose their idea or someone else can stumble on the same observation and actually articulate useful empirical metrics.

There is just too much white noise for any other approach.

proximity1 · September 10, 2012

This is an example of an idea that - as an absolute amateur myself - I would be exceptionally reluctant to read up on, because frankly the sheer amount of ridiculousness in the idea suggests that "Either A) you are misrepresenting Kupiec B) Kupiec's contention is poorly articulated yet somehow carries a hidden grain of genius or C) Kupiec's contention is poorly articulated because it's idiotic drivel"

I say this because the claim that cells, tissue and organs "rather exactly mirror" external environmental relationships is dead wrong - I do not have wild livers breeding, competing and killing each other within my body, nor can any cellular mutation that leads to a momentary improvement in function actually pass those improvements on - mutations in liver cells don't migrate down into the reproductive genes of the host.

Now, I'm not a scientist, but I would generally give a person making that claim about 30 seconds to see if they can say something that would clarify the statement in a manner that is coherent, but not longer if the initial claim is already that inarticulate. I hear enough incoherent theories in a day (and I'm a laymen) that more than 30 seconds would become debilitating after a while. If there is scientific genius in the idea, then someone else will eventually discover it who is capable of articulating it, and if not then there's no loss.

What the heck does quantum unpredictability have to do with this at all? Who claims unpredictable quantum randomness results in anything inconsistent with deterministic operations at all, whether in biology or anywhere else in nature?

The only thing that quantum unpredictability results in is you don't know which set of deterministic outcomes will be observed, and the possibility that multiple potential outcomes may interfere with each other (such as double slit experiment) but I still don't see how it applies.

If a theory demonstrated how particles maintaining quantum superpositions result in non-classically observed outcomes within biology I would find it very interesting - mostly because quantum computing requires huge amounts of energy to "isolate" particles from ambient heat and other factors that would reduce it to a classical single set of results and if this occurs in biological nature in some demonstrable way amongst the heat density and pressure of a living organism I'd love to know more.

I won't hold my breath - not because I am dismissive of the idea - I am dismissive of the proponent's capacity to articulate any useful information... if the proponent fails then they can either get their thoughts together and re-propose their idea or someone else can stumble on the same observation and actually articulate useful empirical metrics.

There is just too much white noise for any other approach.

RE: "The only thing that quantum unpredictability results in is you don't know which set of deterministic outcomes will be observed, and the possibility that multiple potential outcomes may interfere with each other (such as double slit experiment) but I still don't see how it applies."

Well, rather than say "set of deterministic outcomes," the theory proposed (in another thread, where you'll find my more extensive reply to your post here,) Kupiec would say, "Probabilistic outcomes"---because, and this is very crucial to his point, the outcomes are simply not "determined," they present a more or less varied range of possible outcomes or, as you have put it, we "don't know which set of deterministic outcomes will be observed."

For that reason, argues Kupiec, the best understanding of these processes is just this probabilistically produced set.

For my complete reply to your comment here, please refer to On Ontophylogenesis or "Cellular Darwinism" at post N° 13 where you may read and judge for yourself whether I have misstated or misunderstood the points being argued by Kupiec.

Thank you, too, for having read this thread, my comments, and having thought about them and offered the reply.

proximity1 · September 12, 2012

Some thoughts of a related kind---

Having now a bit more experience in this site than when I first posted here, what I see as the importance of this topic has come into greater and greater relief.

As I've thought about it a bit, I see that the topic's title question is really only one facet of a much larger picture—and with my experience here, I now know that the general habit here is to address issues from the more praticular rather than the more general perspective. In this case, I think that tendency is greatly to be regretted because, by considering many of the other facets of the issue of intellectual openness on the part of practitioners of science and its closest related occupations, we could find these facets throw useful and interesting light on each other.

Here, as a provisional proposition, is one example of how I would find the discussion to gain in interest if it also took up a related question—that being, namely « How well would an unknown 'Richard Feynman-like character' fare in these fora? »

Most of us are familiar with the name Richard Feynman and many of us first learned whatever we may know about his life and work only long after he had become celebrated in the annals of science. Thus—if we employ a little thought-experiment—if Feynman, the famous scientist we know of were somehow to join in this site's discussions today, I cannot doubt that he would enjoy a degree of respect that few others would command. All of that is easy to recognize and accept. It doesn't go against anyone's cherished beliefs to point any of that out.

But, what if Feynman's participation occurred under a name that no one recognized? How would Feynman, the character, be perceived and received here if he came without the name of one of the 20^th century's most celebrated scientists?

It is in this latter manner that I would find the question interesting to include here under « Why are scientists seemingly reluctant toaccept new ideas? »

To be quite frank, to be, perhaps dangerously frank, my impression after about two weeks' experience is that a quite objective observer of the general practices here should expect the visiting anonymous Feynman to fare rather poorly, to draw very lively opposition and disagreement---just as the real Feynman did in real life. Very few people in positions of authority found R. Feynman to be a benign character, nor one that they veiwed with particular affection—that is what I have gathered from Feynman's autobiographical writings. Simply, Feynman and authority were like the proverbial « Oil and Water »--they didn't mix well or lastingly in a an ordinary bottle of salad-dressing. Nor is there anything very unusual about a genius of Feynman's stature frequently running afoul of the priorities of authority and management.

While science as an endeavor needs as many Richard Feynmans as it can get, it doesn't, as a community of professionals, at least as it seems to me, show much if any greater propensity to tolerate a character such as Feynman than does the general population, that is, when no one has previously identified the person in question as exceptional in his or her—on this the sexes are wonderfully equal for the worse—intellectual gifts.

If this idea isn't unwelcome as a adjunct here—where it seems to me to have every pertinence to the OP---then what, I wonder are the reactions from the readership? And, if necessary, of course, the sausage can always be sliced yet « thinner » and this idea moved somewhere where its pertinence to the current thread won't be noticed or influential---right?

For related interest, I take the opportunity to recommend a post (which now I see I'm unable to locate and link; maybe another reader can post a link to it) by Cap'n Refsmat in which he discusses his reading and view of Paul Feyerabend's Against Method. That is a very interesting post.

Edited September 12, 2012 by proximity1

iNow · September 13, 2012

Here, as a provisional proposition, is one example of how I would find the discussion to gain in interest if it also took up a related question—that being, namely « How well would an unknown 'Richard Feynman-like character' fare in these fora? »

It depends entirely on how well he supported his comments and how well he addressed criticisms of them. That's the beauty of places like this. Who you are and what you do are completely irrelevant. All that matters is your words, your arguments, and evidence you have in support of your position.

Frankly, I find your assertion a bit laughable. Feynman was an actual scientist facing deep questions from his peers, colleagues, and competitors. His life was spent engaging in and responding to the very behavior you seem to see as a downfall on this site. He understood the playing field, and he understood what it took to convince people of his positions. He also was quite willing to alter his own thinking when he was shown to be mistaken. That's precisely what underlies exchanges at SFN and other similar sites like this.

If you don't like it, then tough. Go to a, "I can claim any damned thing I want and nobody will challenge me on my bullshit" site or one where you ask about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin if that's your preference.

Ringer · September 13, 2012

Some thoughts of a related kind---

Having now a bit more experience in this site than when I first posted here, what I see as the importance of this topic has come into greater and greater relief.

As I've thought about it a bit, I see that the topic's title question is really only one facet of a much larger picture—and with my experience here, I now know that the general habit here is to address issues from the more praticular rather than the more general perspective. In this case, I think that tendency is greatly to be regretted because, by considering many of the other facets of the issue of intellectual openness on the part of practitioners of science and its closest related occupations, we could find these facets throw useful and interesting light on each other.

Here, as a provisional proposition, is one example of how I would find the discussion to gain in interest if it also took up a related question—that being, namely « How well would an unknown 'Richard Feynman-like character' fare in these fora? »

Most of us are familiar with the name Richard Feynman and many of us first learned whatever we may know about his life and work only long after he had become celebrated in the annals of science. Thus—if we employ a little thought-experiment—if Feynman, the famous scientist we know of were somehow to join in this site's discussions today, I cannot doubt that he would enjoy a degree of respect that few others would command. All of that is easy to recognize and accept. It doesn't go against anyone's cherished beliefs to point any of that out.

But, what if Feynman's participation occurred under a name that no one recognized? How would Feynman, the character, be perceived and received here if he came without the name of one of the 20^th century's most celebrated scientists?

It is in this latter manner that I would find the question interesting to include here under « Why are scientists seemingly reluctant toaccept new ideas? »

To be quite frank, to be, perhaps dangerously frank, my impression after about two weeks' experience is that a quite objective observer of the general practices here should expect the visiting anonymous Feynman to fare rather poorly, to draw very lively opposition and disagreement---just as the real Feynman did in real life. Very few people in positions of authority found R. Feynman to be a benign character, nor one that they veiwed with particular affection—that is what I have gathered from Feynman's autobiographical writings. Simply, Feynman and authority were like the proverbial « Oil and Water »--they didn't mix well or lastingly in a an ordinary bottle of salad-dressing. Nor is there anything very unusual about a genius of Feynman's stature frequently running afoul of the priorities of authority and management.

While science as an endeavor needs as many Richard Feynmans as it can get, it doesn't, as a community of professionals, at least as it seems to me, show much if any greater propensity to tolerate a character such as Feynman than does the general population, that is, when no one has previously identified the person in question as exceptional in his or her—on this the sexes are wonderfully equal for the worse—intellectual gifts.

If this idea isn't unwelcome as a adjunct here—where it seems to me to have every pertinence to the OP---then what, I wonder are the reactions from the readership? And, if necessary, of course, the sausage can always be sliced yet « thinner » and this idea moved somewhere where its pertinence to the current thread won't be noticed or influential---right?

For related interest, I take the opportunity to recommend a post (which now I see I'm unable to locate and link; maybe another reader can post a link to it) by Cap'n Refsmat in which he discusses his reading and view of Paul Feyerabend's Against Method. That is a very interesting post.

I think it's humorous you use Feynman. If you read his works you will notice that the reluctance we show is exactly what he promoted constantly. Look at his lectures on cargo cult sciences and you should see what I mean. He was also very disappointed that so many studies have not been strictly replicated to show their applicability. He also understood the bias people have towards their own ideas and, therefore, the necessity of having them torn apart by impartial individuals. He was an outside the box thinker, and came up with some amazing things.

An example on what it would look like if Feynman came here and your average speculations conversation. Let's do the usual speculations one first.

Avg. Speculator (AS) - My idea will revolutionize physics and brings understanding of every part of physics (insert idea and perhaps graphs)

Forum (F) - Your ideas don't seem to explain much of anything or are in disagreement with known experiments.

AS - No you don't understand what my 'theory' is saying (insert a retelling of the 1st post).

F - It is still in disagreement and you don't have any math in your post. You can't have a proper prediction or theory without math supporting it.

AS - My theory doesn't need math, it just makes sense.

And this goes on for pages without making any progress. Now let's see how this would have went with Feynman and, say, his famous Feynman Diagrams (assuming this is a new idea).

RF - I have a new idea on how to explain the interactions and behavior of subatomic particles. These diagrams seem to agree with the findings of (insert cited papers).

F - Well the diagrams seem to show the behavior of the particles but there is no math behind the pictures, without that it is just a pretty picture.

RF - The diagrams don't actually replace the math behind QM, but they can be used as a simplified representation of what occurs at the subatomic level. The math is necessary, but these diagrams can be used as a short hand, simplified version.

And this goes on with the idea being explained and expanded.

**swansont** · September 13, 2012

Most of us are familiar with the name Richard Feynman and many of us first learned whatever we may know about his life and work only long after he had become celebrated in the annals of science. Thus—if we employ a little thought-experiment—if Feynman, the famous scientist we know of were somehow to join in this site's discussions today, I cannot doubt that he would enjoy a degree of respect that few others would command. All of that is easy to recognize and accept. It doesn't go against anyone's cherished beliefs to point any of that out.

But, what if Feynman's participation occurred under a name that no one recognized? How would Feynman, the character, be perceived and received here if he came without the name of one of the 20^th century's most celebrated scientists?

It is in this latter manner that I would find the question interesting to include here under « Why are scientists seemingly reluctant toaccept new ideas? »

Why is this forum seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas is a different question from why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas. Because if you are trying to argue the latter, you'd have to claim that Feynman's idea would never have been readily accepted by the physics community, and history tells us otherwise. It's one reason why some of the accusations and contentions present in the thread are complete bunk — there are claims that things don't happen that obviously have happened.

If Feynman showed up as an unknown and presented his material, I would guess that the conversation would go along as Ringer described, and then the thread might just go silent, because there aren't a large number of physicists here and we might not be able to properly evaluate the thesis (remember, we would not have been exposed to it in grad school). But it's very, very likely that the conversation would be distinct from the other threads we run across in speculations, because there would be predictions and math. He's be able to answer questions that asked about predictions for e.g. the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and the Lamb shift in hydrogen. Which is something that would set him apart — way, way apart — from the typical arrival in speculation.

Anilkumar · September 18, 2012

Hello everybody,

Sorry for the delay of reply. Here is a confession of sorts.

When I was ready with the reply to Swansont's post, [it was ready within two days] I saw Ringer's post. I felt I should post both replies simultaneously, because Ringer's post is linked with Swansont's.

It is easy to deal with technical posts which are devoid of emotions [which is the mark of the Proficient.], because [once the technicalities of the post are understood], it is easy to answer it since it is either Right or Wrong. If it is Right it is accepted and if one finds it wrong, the thing to be done is to give the technicalities/logic, supporting why it is wrong. That is a beautiful sweet discussion.

However, it becomes tough to manage posts with emotional ingredients. One will have to prove why the Emotional Premise is wrong. Moreover, Emotion is personal. While one is dealing with the Emotion, one is dealing with the Person and that leads to spurt of more Emotions, in addition, to a bitter discussion and a long drawn one. Not all Emotions are Right/Wrong. Like;

When it is said ". . . It is none of our jobs to help them . . .", then questions get raised;

What is the soldier at war doing?

What is the Truthful Politician [Martin Luther King, Gandhi] doing?

What was Mother Theresa doing?

What was Louis Pasteur doing?

What was William Harvey doing?

Have they not helped us?

What is scientific development/knowledge, for, apart from making us knowledgeable?

I wrote and rewrote the reply to Ringers post, but was not satisfied. Because initially I wrote answers to deal with the premises from which I found Ringer had based his thoughts so that it could avoid a long drawn discussion. However, the post itself would be too long and again lead to a longer discussion because the premises have not yet materialized completely. Then I omitted, thinking that it would be appropriate to say those things as and when the premises present themselves entirely. Again, I felt; what has to be said should be said; in a discussion.

Then I shortened it by dealing with only with those premises that had materialized and here it is.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

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

Hello Anilkumar,

Are you taking your cue from Pilgrim's Progress?

The style is strangely reminiscent.

Certainly, books are the Architects that build us. It would not be possible for me to single out one book that has influenced me the most. However, I had not come across the book until you mentioned it. I will make it a point to read it.

I have already answered Swansont's misreading of my last post.

I felt I should endorse it since you had rightly pointed out.

Again your long post contained much of worth, with measured and polite responses to the knee jerk reactions of others.

Keep at it.

Thanks Studiot. It builds the spirit to manage the ugly tirades.

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

The opposite of reluctance is eagerness. Why should we be eager to accept new, untested and half-formed ideas?

I did not ask for the acceptance of new, untested and half-formed ideas; I asked for their Perusal.

Then there is no problem. New ideas are proposed and considered all the time. However, the ones that are are, generally speaking, properly formulated with some degree of rigor, i.e. supporting mathematics and models.

New ideas are proposed and considered all the time?

Aren't we discussing about the Reluctance in considering them?

Reasoning is not the same as empirical data. Quantum mechanics, for example, was not introduced by reasoning; many think it counterintuitive.

No, the Accord/Discord of the empirical data is a Reason for the Acceptance/Rejection of a theory.

Again, he never said anything about being reluctant to read or address the ideas. . .

. . . It was a straw-man, you saying it is not doesn't make it any less of a logical fallacy. . .

So let me see if I'm following you here. You say you are going to show me why my assumption is incorrect by . . . 2.) using the same straw-man about not even reading new ideas. Man you sure showed me. . .

Sometimes it takes a little more time & words than assumed, to make a point. Please read below.

Yes, you added it. Since I had not addressed that, you cannot assume that I hold a particular position on it. Thus, attacking a straw man of my position is wrong.

Absolutely not. You began it.

An extension of the boundary is not a Straw-man, especially when the other party itself brings it.

You added the 'Wrong ideas' part. Therefore, I had to add the 'Reading' part. Otherwise, the discussion would have been unfair.

When the OP questioned, "Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?"; certainly the OP was not asking for the WRONG ideas to be accepted. Nobody would do that. Therefore, the question really was "Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept RIGHT new ideas?"

However, you replied to it by saying, 'The Reluctance is because most of them are wrong'. The OP never asked about the Acceptance of WRONG ideas. This in reality was a straw-man argument, because the question was not & cannot be about wrong ideas. Nevertheless, many members endorsed it. You took the 'wrong ideas' too into the fold.

Then, people could have brushed it aside by saying it was a straw-man argument. Nobody did it.

Even I too gave you that, because I do not expect a Straw-man argument from you. Therefore, I took it as an extension to wrong ideas as well i.e. ALL NEW IDEAS, the Wrong + Right. I also felt this discussion would be incomplete if it addresses only the Reluctance towards Acceptance of RIGHT ideas; the Reluctance is not simply confined to mere acceptance of RIGHT ideas but as you said, it may be so, it is actually also towards even looking at new ideas.

Now when the view that, Reluctance is due to most of them being wrong, is established & endorsed by all; then the focus shifts from ACCEPTANCE to PERUSAL, because;

When wrong ideas too are taken into the fold, the question of ACCEPTANCE does not arise there. We are ACTUALLY discussing then about their PERUSAL.

Therefore, I added the words about 'READING THE NEW IDEAS' i.e. the PERUSAL part. You induced it.

There is Reluctance to the Perusal of all new ideas, and it is wrong.

And after all this discussion; the original questions of the OP remain unanswered. I.E.

Why, Science in many ways is like a Religion?

Why, when a scientific theory becomes widely accepted among the scientific community, it almost becomes scientific dogma, and anyone who proposes a radical new

idea is rarely taken seriously because so many scientists will have staked their entire careers on the existing theory?

This is quite disturbing, because it goes completely counter to everything one believes in about what scientists should do.

You would have to demonstrate that the idea is actually false for that to be an example. The bottom line is that the model works, and quite well. But that's for the other thread on the topic.

When there is Reluctance to perusal of my demonstration, how can I prove that it is an example? Isn't this Reluctance an attempt to convert a Theory into a Cult? The actual bottom line is that the model works, and quite well but what makes it work is not as proposed; the Space & Time cannot work at all. Yes, that's for the other thread on the topic.

He's be able to answer questions that asked about predictions . . .

I have answered questions raised regarding a new thought I have proposed. On the contrary, I have not got answers to the questions I have raised regarding the prevailing thought.

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

. . . Note also that by saying that was the one truthful confession it can be inferred are believe the rest of of are trying to be deceitful in some way. . .

I was referring to the opinions on your side. In a debate between two views, it should be regularly known that one's opinions are heading for the views on the other side.

. . . Creating a false equivalence between reluctance to accept new ideas and prejudice is not a great way to begin a logical argument.

Reluctance to look at, ALL new ideas, on the Preconception that, MOST of them are wrong, is a Prejudice.

If we look from the other angle, it is also not the way to deal with them. In its place, one should be Enthusiastic to peruse new ideas & pick out the good ideas to give them scope and to CORRECT the wrong ideas to EDUCATE. That would help spread the scientific spirit. Reluctance is a negative feeling originated due to apathy generated because of getting to face a large number of wrong ideas.

Then you accept that we shouldn't begin to accept ideas without evidence?

The OP did not ask anything about accepting ideas without evidence.

Moreover, I have discussed about looking into new ideas [Wrong, which were introduced later + Right], and not acceptance of ideas without evidence.

So let me see if I'm following you here. You say you are going to show me why my assumption is incorrect by 1.) adding non before scientific to try to make it seem like I'm incorrect without having to actually argue your case . . .

I have placed the required argument. I can elaborate more if need be. I added the word 'Non', because Reluctance is just a knee jerk human Emotion/Reaction towards a new model. Like 'Fire! don't go near it'. Otherwise the Controlled, Methodical, Positive, Constructive & Deliberated response should be to harvest its benefits by devising ways to handle it. We should be working towards spreading the scientific spirit of Critical Thinking, Innovativeness. However, Reluctance opposes it. That which discourages the spread of scientific spirit does not belong to the world of Science. That is why it is Non-Scientific.

Let me give an example of constructive channeling & utilizing of Talent;

Frank William Abagnale, Jr was a confidence trickster, check forger, impostor, and escape artist. He passed $2.5 million worth, in the 1960s, of meticulously forged checks across 26 countries over the course of five years, beginning when he was just 16 years old. In the process, he became one of the most famous impostors ever, to have assumed no fewer than eight separate identities as an airline pilot, a doctor, a U.S. Bureau of Prisons agent, and a lawyer. He escaped from police custody twice (once from a taxiing airliner and once from a U.S. federal penitentiary), before he was only 21 years old. Abagnale was eventually caught in France in 1969 and was sentenced to 12 years in a US federal prison for multiple counts of forgery. He is considered one of TIME magazine's All-time Top 10 Imposters.

In 1974, after he had served less than five years, the United States federal government released him on the condition that he would help the federal authorities without pay against crimes committed by fraud and scam artists, and sign in once a week.

And now;

He has been married for 34 years. He has three sons and lives a quiet life in the Midwest. Since his release from prison Frank has helped the FBI capture some of the world's elusive check forgers and counterfeiters and is considered one of the world's foremost authorities on Bank fraud and forgery. Frank has designed many of the secure checks that Banks & Fortune 500 companies use today. For his services, these companies pay him millions of dollars a year.

Abagnale also continues to advise the FBI, with whom he has associated for over 40 years, by teaching at the FBI Academy and lecturing for FBI field offices throughout the country. It is said; more than 14,000 institutions have adopted Abagnale's fraud prevention programs.

He is the CEO of Abagnale & Associates (security consultants).

He got someone who positively believed in him. That is what changed his life from being an anti-social to making him useful to society.

One can make an estimate of the people who should have been Reluctant and raised eyebrows when FBI decided to take Frank's Help.

POSITIVE SCOPE is necessary for development, RELUCTANCE that curtails development, is the answer of the Imprudent.

So you are saying some ideas shouldn't be considered within science?

You need to define 'some'. Moreover, the point to be noted here is, one needs to look into the idea expressed, thoroughly, without being Reluctant, to check whether it fits that definition or not and then only can, one decide whether it can be considered or not. Without looking inside, one cannot decide about consideration.

The person with this attitude creates soldiers under a dictator who is in need of people who outsource their Logical thinking to someone else and keep the holy duty of following faithfully to themselves.

Come on, slippery-slope fallacy already?

Science is also about building better thinking abilities, to create a better society.

I'm going to go ahead and skip this part because I don't see what it has to do with the discussion at hand.

It is very simple to understand. If we respect Science, it becomes our responsibility to promote Logical & Innovative thinking, since Science is also about Logical Thinking & Innovation. The Logical & Innovative thinking helps tackle social menaces like Dictatorship, by enlightening people about what is wrong & Right. It is because of absence of Logical & Innovative thinking, innocent people become victims in the hands of Dictators. Promoting Logical & Innovative thinking is necessary for overall development of human society. There is no slippery slope here.

I'm going to go ahead and skip this part because I don't see what it has to do with the discussion at hand.

Skipping things that we don't see, doesn't take us any further. The better way is to ask for a sufficient explanation if one doesn't get a clear picture from the existing one.

There isn't a reluctance to look at them, and if there was those pages of responses in the speculations forums must be about nothing. If that were true a large number of us should be banned for constantly derailing threads.

There will be a flood of responses defending an existing Theory, when it is criticized. However, when a new way of seeing things is stated; the Reluctance comes into play. The Wrongs/Rights of a new thought are not at all discussed/looked into.

I see it as a person trying to answer questions he or she doesn't understand or is already answered. If I wrote a book about how everyone's ideas about Shakespeare's writings were wrong and I am the only one who sees what they really are even though I have never read any Shakespeare other than cliff notes I would be a laughing stock.

So a person while studying something, should not raise questions like, Why can't it be the other way? What if I make it this way?

Moreover, it is easy to convince one who is trying to raise & answer questions on a subject one hasn't studied or doesn't understand.

You gave the Shakespearean example. I will give a living example which concerns Science and in which I am struggling to introduce a new idea. I said Space & Time do not get curved. While telling me that I haven't studied GR properly, and that I do not understand it properly people forget on the other hand that they have neglected utterly the available information about Space & Time just to accommodate the illicit [Which is worse than half baked ideas] assumption which they are so proud of having studied & understood. Moreover, they too refuse all criticism with resentment. It is a great mystery existing in Science world that an illicit assumption is preferred to available experimental evidence just to maintain that someone/something can't be wrong. In addition, it is contended that the assumption is scientific. Isn't it a shame? Whose turn is it to become a laughing stock? I will not discuss any further than this, since it is not the subject of this thread.

Avg. Speculator (AS) - My idea will revolutionize physics and brings understanding of every part of physics (insert idea and perhaps graphs)

Forum (F) - Your ideas don't seem to explain much of anything or are in disagreement with known experiments.

AS - No you don't understand what my 'theory' is saying (insert a retelling of the 1st post).

F - It is still in disagreement and you don't have any math in your post. You can't have a proper prediction or theory without math supporting it.

AS - My theory doesn't need math, it just makes sense.

And this goes on for pages without making any progress. Now let's see how this would have went with Feynman and, say, his famous Feynman Diagrams (assuming this is a new idea).

RF - I have a new idea on how to explain the interactions and behavior of subatomic particles. These diagrams seem to agree with the findings of (insert cited papers).

F - Well the diagrams seem to show the behavior of the particles but there is no math behind the pictures, without that it is just a pretty picture.

RF - The diagrams don't actually replace the math behind QM, but they can be used as a simplified representation of what occurs at the subatomic level. The math is necessary, but these diagrams can be used as a short hand, simplified version.

And this goes on with the idea being explained and expanded.

I would be thankful if the Forum peruses my new idea. In addition, when I am incapable of answering the questions raised, I would consider my idea inadequate. On the contrary, what I have encountered is the exact opposite of that.

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

Why one will view as Wrong, what other says as Right?

Like, Why some people think it is none of our jobs to help? & Others feel it is good to help.

Let us discuss through an example;

A part of human race has suffered from a bent of mind; and has not been able to triumph over it totally since long, despite all this scientific & social development. That is the desire to be Dominant over others. Such man has made the purpose of his life to convert himself into a dominant supercilious force so that, it facilitates him to satiate the desire for appeasing his Ego, or to please himself according to his whims & fancies, or to attain the dogmatic goals of life, or just to make a better living than the others.

Let me tell a story; a Love triangle of sorts.

But before that, let us see How Dominating Superiority is achieved? Or What is Dominant Superiority?

It is achieved by maintaining a difference in Abilities between the self-styled Superior & the so-called Inferior. Dominating Superiority is acquiring more Abilities than others do to derive personal pleasure. [see this in contrast to; Use of One's Abilities to help others.]

What are these Abilities?

Abilities are nothing but Possessions. They can be anything between Wealth, Physical Strength, Information, Beauty, Knowledge etc. These can be summed up as Commodities. So it can be said; Abilities are nothing but possession of Commodities.

Now let us come to the Love triangle story.

On one vertex of the Triangle are the Commodities.

On another vertex is the self-styled Superior.

On the other vertex is the bent of mind that considers that all of us are one kind i.e. Human Beings and all of us are equal nobody is Superior or Inferior. We should live by sharing & cooperating. -The Egalitarians.

The Egalitarians also try to become a dominant force; but to help the needy and bring a overall development of the society.

The self-styled Superiors, want to accumulate the Commodities and maintain a difference between themselves & others in possessions or abilities, so they can satiate their hunger to accomplish their whims & fancies or attain the dogmatic goals of life by exploiting that disparity or appease themselves by exploiting others. Like; a Trader profits by exploiting the disparity in accumulations of stock.

The Egalitarians due to their bent of mind i.e. they derive contentment in helping others, sharing & being cooperative, want to share and Live & let live others.

Their different desires stem from different premises i.e. one to help others the other to appease themselves. They are two divergent views that cannot have a common ground. They cannot reach a consensus.

The other will view what one says as wrong, because the premises of their desires are different.

The dominance lovers would say 'It is not our job to help others'. And when someone says "The person with this attitude [not promoting Logical & Innovative thinking by being Reluctant to New Innovators/Innovations] creates soldiers under a dictator [who is in need of Unknowing people who outsource their Logical thinking to someone else and keep the holy duty of following faithfully to themselves]." it seems to them a slippery-slope fallacy. In addition, they say I don't see what, saying "Science is also about building better thinking abilities, to create a better society" has to do with the discussion on Reluctance to Perusal of new ideas.

Simply put, One doesn't understand the Other, because the premises of their thoughts are different.

Then let us see, How a Commodity like Knowledge & Information Originated?

People like William Harvey, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Galileo etc spent their lives to Know, to Understand, Life, so that they and others could be Enlightened about life and make everyone's life easy by that Knowledge. However, not to use that gathered Knowledge to dominate over others.

However, we need to bring to mind that the Founders of that Knowledge did it to Help others. Not to accumulate it and Live on it or Dominate over others.

Nevertheless, it is part of life that there are people who use that same Knowledge attained by someone for the betterment of others and there are the others who accumulate it & use it to Dominate over their fellow beings by Exploiting the disparity.

The Exploiters are Reluctant to other's ideas. They do not want others' ideas to come to fore. They build Cults of their ideas, so that they can dominate, as the Experts/Preachers/Founders of that Cult. Therefore, they go on Preaching their wrong hypotheses single-mindedly without the slightest consideration for other's ideas.

The other is eager to spread Knowledge, so is open to new ideas, picking the good ones and giving scope or correcting the wrong ones.

There are people who want to generate & spread Knowledge compassionately. But, there are people who want to use it for their pleasure. They preach their cult & resist any new idea that proposes to contradict.

What is scientific development/knowledge for, apart from making us knowledgeable?

Is it for acquiring that knowledge and using it to help others or to rule over others?

If Ringer says "It is none of our jobs to help the innovators" then; what is he doing on a Forum like this?

Is he here to Preach what He Thinks is Right? Is he here to Preach & Build his Cult?

One will view as Wrong, what other says as Right.

One final word or question to the ones who think "It is not their jobs to help others";

Do/Did you not take the help of others, at any step of your life?

If your answer is YES i.e. you take or have taken help, then do you mean to say that you only take help but don't give any in return?

If your answer is NO i.e. you have not taken help or will not take any help, then I will guarantee you;

You don't exist OR you will cease to exist.

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

Now, I'm not a scientist, but I would generally give a person making that claim about 30 seconds to see if they can say something that would clarify the statement in a manner that is coherent, but not longer if the initial claim is already that inarticulate. I hear enough incoherent theories in a day (and I'm a laymen) that more than 30 seconds would become debilitating after a while. If there is scientific genius in the idea, then someone else will eventually discover it who is capable of articulating it, and if not then there's no loss.

Most new ideas are labeled as wrong by those who are incapable of scrutinizing them. When I proposed a new thought regarding space-time curvature/Gravity, the first person who called me a Crack-pot and a Dead Horse, did not himself have a proper understanding of the space-time curvature hypothesis. The zealous Cult followers are the first to React.

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

. . . that science is in many way like a religion

. . .when a scientific theory becomes widely accepted among the scientific community, it almost becomes scientific dogma, and anyone who proposes a radical new idea is rarely taken seriously because so many scientists will have staked their entire careers on the existing theory.

. . .I confess I found this claim to be quite disturbing, because it goes completely counter to everything I believe in about what scientists should do.

My answer to questions of OP is; Yes it is Disturbing. However, there are things to rejoice too.

Not all Scientists do that. There are Scientists who live FOR Science, though numbered very few. It is because of them that Science exists & develops. There are the others who live ON it. They convert theories into a Cult/Religion and they its Priests. In addition, they would go to any length to decline the Right New Ideas. They would be Intolerant, Reluctant, Derisive, Sadistic etc.

However, we need to Rejoice in the fact that, despite such Ugly acts, we have seen in the past, established theories being toppled. Despite the tactics of the people who have staked their careers and are Reluctant to new ideas, there will be others who recognize the prudence in accepting a better theory and then the coming new generations would continue to accept the better Idea in place of the wrong old idea and thus, the old wrong Idea is toppled. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly are everywhere. It is for us to choose the Right from the Wrong. And Logic is the thing that holds our hands and helps us do it. To assume that Good is everywhere would be unwise. After all, we are human beings. The human weaknesses are everywhere. They are more prone to flock in a field, which is highly respected.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Anilkumar

**swansont** · September 18, 2012

I did not ask for the acceptance of new, untested and half-formed ideas; I asked for their Perusal.

Yes, YOU asked for this, in post #32. Prior to that, it had not been discussed.

New ideas are proposed and considered all the time?

Aren't we discussing about the Reluctance in considering them?

No, YOU are discussing that.

Absolutely not. You began it.

It's quite clear that you brought it up first, and that nobody else was discussing it before post #32.

An extension of the boundary is not a Straw-man, especially when the other party itself brings it.

You added the 'Wrong ideas' part. Therefore, I had to add the 'Reading' part. Otherwise, the discussion would have been unfair.

When the OP questioned, "Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?"; certainly the OP was not asking for the WRONG ideas to be accepted. Nobody would do that. Therefore, the question really was "Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept RIGHT new ideas?"

I doubt most people interpreted it that way, considering the answers, which point more to UNTESTED ideas not being accepted, because they are likely to be wrong. The only way to be sure a new idea is right is to have it thoroughly tested. But by the time that happens, the idea really isn't new anymore.

However, you replied to it by saying, 'The Reluctance is because most of them are wrong'. The OP never asked about the Acceptance of WRONG ideas. This in reality was a straw-man argument, because the question was not & cannot be about wrong ideas. Nevertheless, many members endorsed it. You took the 'wrong ideas' too into the fold.

Then, people could have brushed it aside by saying it was a straw-man argument. Nobody did it.

I suspect most people took "new" to mean "untested", as I did.

Even I too gave you that, because I do not expect a Straw-man argument from you. Therefore, I took it as an extension to wrong ideas as well i.e. ALL NEW IDEAS, the Wrong + Right. I also felt this discussion would be incomplete if it addresses only the Reluctance towards Acceptance of RIGHT ideas; the Reluctance is not simply confined to mere acceptance of RIGHT ideas but as you said, it may be so, it is actually also towards even looking at new ideas.

Now when the view that, Reluctance is due to most of them being wrong, is established & endorsed by all; then the focus shifts from ACCEPTANCE to PERUSAL, because;

When wrong ideas too are taken into the fold, the question of ACCEPTANCE does not arise there. We are ACTUALLY discussing then about their PERUSAL.

Therefore, I added the words about 'READING THE NEW IDEAS' i.e. the PERUSAL part. You induced it.

Yes you added them, and it's a logical extension, but it wasn't under actual discussion until then. Further, I've told you a couple of times now that I wasn't discussing that in my answers. It takes a bit of chutzpah to tell me that I actually was. It also implies deceit on my part.

There is Reluctance to the Perusal of all new ideas, and it is wrong.

Examples? Since you have defined this as RIGHT ideas, what RIGHT ideas — ones that had data and mechanisms and all necessary parts of a theory — have scientists been reluctant to accept?

And after all this discussion; the original questions of the OP remain unanswered. I.E.

Why, Science in many ways is like a Religion?

In what ways is it a religion?

Why, when a scientific theory becomes widely accepted among the scientific community, it almost becomes scientific dogma, and anyone who proposes a radical new

idea is rarely taken seriously because so many scientists will have staked their entire careers on the existing theory?

This is quite disturbing, because it goes completely counter to everything one believes in about what scientists should do.

Without examples, i.e. data, we cannot accept this as being RIGHT.

Ringer · September 19, 2012

Thanks Studiot. It builds the spirit to manage the ugly tirades.

. . . What tirades?

I did not ask for the acceptance of new, untested and half-formed ideas; I asked for their Perusal.

Show an example where someone has said that this is not done.

New ideas are proposed and considered all the time?

Aren't we discussing about the Reluctance in considering them?

Apparently you are, no one else I noticed was. But I start talking about this because if we are talking about two different things the discussion goes nowhere.

Yes new ideas are considered, if not science would be at a standstill. Not to mention all this money spent on education would be wasted on my part.

Absolutely not. You began it.

An extension of the boundary is not a Straw-man, especially when the other party itself brings it.

You added the 'Wrong ideas' part. Therefore, I had to add the 'Reading' part. Otherwise, the discussion would have been unfair.

This is exactly why it is a straw-man. You added something to his argument to make him seem wrong. He didn't even add the wrong ideas part. The OP asked about ALL ideas. Since WRONG ideas are a subset of ALL ideas saying that the wrong ones are not accepted in no way changed the discussion. You changed the premise by going from the OPs statement of all ideas to using a subset of all ideas. It's a straw-man.

When the OP questioned, "Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?"; certainly the OP was not asking for the WRONG ideas to be accepted. Nobody would do that. Therefore, the question really was "Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept RIGHT new ideas?"

I give the OP enough credit to tell the difference between all ideas and correct ideas.

However, you replied to it by saying, 'The Reluctance is because most of them are wrong'. The OP never asked about the Acceptance of WRONG ideas. This in reality was a straw-man argument, because the question was not & cannot be about wrong ideas. Nevertheless, many members endorsed it. You took the 'wrong ideas' too into the fold.

Then, people could have brushed it aside by saying it was a straw-man argument. Nobody did it.

It wasn't because right/wrong wasn't specified only new. If right/wrong was specified it would be different, it seems you are the only one who assumed to know the OP meant something different than what he/she said.

Even I too gave you that, because I do not expect a Straw-man argument from you. Therefore, I took it as an extension to wrong ideas as well i.e. ALL NEW IDEAS, the Wrong + Right. I also felt this discussion would be incomplete if it addresses only the Reluctance towards Acceptance of RIGHT ideas; the Reluctance is not simply confined to mere acceptance of RIGHT ideas but as you said, it may be so, it is actually also towards even looking at new ideas.

And thus the other straw-man comes out. Again, no one said anything about even looking at new ideas as a whole. You added that as well.

Now when the view that, Reluctance is due to most of them being wrong, is established & endorsed by all; then the focus shifts from ACCEPTANCE to PERUSAL, because;

When wrong ideas too are taken into the fold, the question of ACCEPTANCE does not arise there. We are ACTUALLY discussing then about their PERUSAL.

Therefore, I added the words about 'READING THE NEW IDEAS' i.e. the PERUSAL part. You induced it.

No you brought about both correct ideas and reading instead of accepting.

There is Reluctance to the Perusal of all new ideas, and it is wrong.

No it's not. If everyone took the time to look at every single idea everyone comes up with nothing would get done. That's why there are ways to properly test/contact someone to test an idea. They will be perused, but they will cannot be expected be perused by anyone the person with the idea wants tell.

Why, Science in many ways is like a Religion?

How so?

Why, when a scientific theory becomes widely accepted among the scientific community, it almost becomes scientific dogma, and anyone who proposes a radical new

idea is rarely taken seriously because so many scientists will have staked their entire careers on the existing theory?

Then how did it get accepted over the prior dogma? By definition evidence isn't needed for dogma so how did they judge the two theories? A coin flip perhaps?

This is quite disturbing, because it goes completely counter to everything one believes in about what scientists should do.

Well I hear that scientists do like flipping coins.

When there is Reluctance to perusal of my demonstration, how can I prove that it is an example? Isn't this Reluctance an attempt to convert a Theory into a Cult? The actual bottom line is that the model works, and quite well but what makes it work is not as proposed; the Space & Time cannot work at all. Yes, that's for the other thread on the topic.

All that matters is evidence at explaining phenomena and making more accurate predictions. If a new theory comes out that answers all the old question better than the old model or answers all those questions and more it will be adopted. It's always wrong to a degree, but it's less wrong than the other ideas.

I have answered questions raised regarding a new thought I have proposed. On the contrary, I have not got answers to the questions I have raised regarding the prevailing thought.

Because what you think the prevailing thought is is incorrect. You shouldn't expect an answer to a loaded question.

I was referring to the opinions on your side. In a debate between two views, it should be regularly known that one's opinions are heading for the views on the other side.

So the opinions on my side make my posts less truthful than other posts? In what way am I not being truthful?

Reluctance to look at, ALL new ideas, on the Preconception that, MOST of them are wrong, is a Prejudice.

No it's not. Prejudice is judging based on personal characteristics, it doesn't involve ideas. Knowledge of the fact most ideas are wrong is not prejudice so the false equivalence stands.

Again, who said new ideas are not looked at?

If we look from the other angle, it is also not the way to deal with them. In its place, one should be Enthusiastic to peruse new ideas & pick out the good ideas to give them scope and to CORRECT the wrong ideas to EDUCATE. That would help spread the scientific spirit. Reluctance is a negative feeling originated due to apathy generated because of getting to face a large number of wrong ideas.

Give me some examples of when this happens.

The OP did not ask anything about accepting ideas without evidence.

Nor did he say anything about accepting ideas with evidence.

Moreover, I have discussed about looking into new ideas [Wrong, which were introduced later + Right], and not acceptance of ideas without evidence.

Give an example of when we have said we shouldn't accept ideas that have evidence OR we shouldn't even look at new ideas.

I have placed the required argument. I can elaborate more if need be. I added the word 'Non', because Reluctance is just a knee jerk human Emotion/Reaction towards a new model. Like 'Fire! don't go near it'. Otherwise the Controlled, Methodical, Positive, Constructive & Deliberated response should be to harvest its benefits by devising ways to handle it. We should be working towards spreading the scientific spirit of Critical Thinking, Innovativeness. However, Reluctance opposes it. That which discourages the spread of scientific spirit does not belong to the world of Science. That is why it is Non-Scientific.

In general reluctance enhances science because it causes one to constantly refine an idea. I assume you mean reluctance to even look at ideas, in which case I agree. Good thing that doesn't really happen.

POSITIVE SCOPE is necessary for development, RELUCTANCE that curtails development, is the answer of the Imprudent.

And eager acceptance is the answer of the ignorant.

You need to define 'some'. Moreover, the point to be noted here is, one needs to look into the idea expressed, thoroughly, without being Reluctant, to check whether it fits that definition or not and then only can, one decide whether it can be considered or not. Without looking inside, one cannot decide about consideration.

Some is a subset of all. Pretty self explanatory.

It is very simple to understand. If we respect Science, it becomes our responsibility to promote Logical & Innovative thinking, since Science is also about Logical Thinking & Innovation. The Logical & Innovative thinking helps tackle social menaces like Dictatorship, by enlightening people about what is wrong & Right. It is because of absence of Logical & Innovative thinking, innocent people become victims in the hands of Dictators. Promoting Logical & Innovative thinking is necessary for overall development of human society. There is no slippery slope here.

Do you even read what is said before making assumptions about what is meant. I said I'm skipping it because it didn't relate to the discussion, being about ethics and such, not that I didn't understand it. Meaning I read it and it didn't add anything to the discussion. We're not talking morality, society, etc.

Skipping things that we don't see, doesn't take us any further. The better way is to ask for a sufficient explanation if one doesn't get a clear picture from the existing one.

Actually skipping things would logically take use further. If I had to go from point A to point C I could get there faster by skipping B.

See I can twist an argument to make it mean whatever I want to.

There will be a flood of responses defending an existing Theory, when it is criticized. However, when a new way of seeing things is stated; the Reluctance comes into play. The Wrongs/Rights of a new thought are not at all discussed/looked into.

It's getting repetitive but I say again, example?

So a person while studying something, should not raise questions like, Why can't it be the other way? What if I make it this way?

At what point did I say ask and not answer? I'm pretty sure I was talking about answering questions considering I used those words. You should really start trying to understand what someone is saying instead of reading a response and assuming there are underlying meanings.

Moreover, it is easy to convince one who is trying to raise & answer questions on a subject one hasn't studied or doesn't understand.

You gave the Shakespearean example. I will give a living example which concerns Science and in which I am struggling to introduce a new idea. I said Space & Time do not get curved. While telling me that I haven't studied GR properly, and that I do not understand it properly people forget on the other hand that they have neglected utterly the available information about Space & Time just to accommodate the illicit [Which is worse than half baked ideas] assumption which they are so proud of having studied & understood. Moreover, they too refuse all criticism with resentment. It is a great mystery existing in Science world that an illicit assumption is preferred to available experimental evidence just to maintain that someone/something can't be wrong. In addition, it is contended that the assumption is scientific. Isn't it a shame? Whose turn is it to become a laughing stock? I will not discuss any further than this, since it is not the subject of this thread.

Anecdote =/= evidence.

I would be thankful if the Forum peruses my new idea. In addition, when I am incapable of answering the questions raised, I would consider my idea inadequate. On the contrary, what I have encountered is the exact opposite of that.

I have looked at your thread of your idea and it seemed to go the route of my first example I gave to proximity.

_________________

Anilkumar · September 25, 2012

Yes, YOU asked for this, in post #32. Prior to that, it had not been discussed.

I don't see which part of Post#32 implies that, I asked for 'acceptance of new, untested and half-formed ideas'.

It wasn't because right/wrong wasn't specified only new. If right/wrong was specified it would be different, it seems you are the only one who assumed to know the OP meant something different than what he/she said.

No, YOU are discussing that.

It's quite clear that you brought it up first, and that nobody else was discussing it before post #32.

I doubt most people interpreted it that way, considering the answers, which point more to UNTESTED ideas not being accepted, because they are likely to be wrong. The only way to be sure a new idea is right is to have it thoroughly tested. But by the time that happens, the idea really isn't new anymore.

I suspect most people took "new" to mean "untested", as I did.

I don't see how anybody would be interested to know 'Why UNTESTED ideas are not accepted?'

Because then the question itself gives the answer. The answer would have been simple.

'Untested ideas are not accepted because they are not tested'.

This is exactly why it is a straw-man.

I give the OP enough credit to tell the difference between all ideas and correct ideas.

And thus the other straw-man comes out. Again, no one said anything about even looking at new ideas as a whole. You added that as well.

No you brought about both correct ideas and reading instead of accepting.

Again, who said new ideas are not looked at?

Yes you added them, and it's a logical extension, but it wasn't under actual discussion until then. Further, I've told you a couple of times now that I wasn't discussing that in my answers. It takes a bit of chutzpah to tell me that I actually was. It also implies deceit on my part.

I don't see how far it is exact, to apply this on me. Because I have clarified in my earlier posts that,

. . . you did not say that there is reluctance even to look at new ideas nor it is mentioned in OP. . .

. . . I added that part. . .

I added that part because, it is a logical extension [you too agree on that]. I added that part because that it is not wrong to discussing on a logical extension of the original question.

Apparently you are, no one else I noticed was. But I start talking about this because if we are talking about two different things the discussion goes nowhere.

Yes new ideas are considered, if not science would be at a standstill. Not to mention all this money spent on education would be wasted on my part.

How so?

Examples? Since you have defined this as RIGHT ideas, what RIGHT ideas — ones that had data and mechanisms and all necessary parts of a theory — have scientists been reluctant to accept?

In what ways is it a religion?

Without examples, i.e. data, we cannot accept this as being RIGHT.

There is no data collected in support to say either it is or it isn't. The OP has sought the opinion of the members.

Here are the opinions of some more experienced persons;

"In the temple of science are many mansions, and various indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have led them thither. Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, the assemblage would be seriously depleted, but there would still be some men, of both present and past times, left inside. Our Planck is one of them, and that is why we love him." — Albert Einstein [Address (1918) for Max Planck's 60th birthday, at Physical Society, Berlin, 'Principles of Research' in Essays in Science]

All communities [business, Religious, Political etc] have different sections, and the scientific community is not an exception, because it is also made up of Human beings. And among Human beings, there are the Dedicated, Sober, Noble, Democratic, Despotic, Compassionate, True Truth searchers, Truth users, Exploitative, Manipulative, Sycophants, Thieves of someone else's ideas, Sadist bullies, Believers, Indolent, Those who live for it, Those who live on it, Clever, Cunning etc. In every community, Business, Religious, Political, or Scientific, there are people who work for the development of the goals of the community, there are people who exploit the community for satiating their goals, there are people who work to gain a position/status in the community and so oppose any view that is detrimental to their status irrespective of whether the opposing view is helpful to the goals of the community or not, there are people who sacrifice their lives for the community and there are those who sacrifice the community for their living.

There are Scientists who have sacrificed their lives for scientific research. Scientists like any other human beings also, Steal, associate with Terrorists, and have worked for dictators. Just Google it and you will have examples. Here are WSJ & NYT clips for example - Here & Here & Here

Human strengths and weaknesses are in every part of society and they do their bit in every field.

So Ringer, this is why morality is necessary everywhere for building a better society.

Let us examine the life cycle of a theory [Just a rough estimate];

When some person conceives a new idea, the Truth seekers Scrutinize it, the sycophantic cult followers & Sadistic bullies deride it, those who have stakes in the prevailing idea and Indolent Resist or deny the scrutiny itself so are Reluctant. . .

Here is Max Plank's experience while introducing a new idea; he said

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it"- Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (1950), 97. Quoted in David L. Hull, Science as a Process (1990).

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

A person is not a Scientist by the strength of the accumulated information or the credentials etc. That person is a Scientist who has made dedicatedly the goal of his life to seek Truth and respect it. The expert who helps that seeking is also a Scientist since she helps the development of Science.

The rest in the field who exist to make a living by the strength of their Tools, the accumulated information and skills, are no different from a person in any section of the society who live by staging or selling their skills like the Sportsman, Singer, Builder, Carpenter, Barber etc. Moreover, the Barber who becomes concerned about the health issues of the scalp and endeavors to invent a remedy that ameliorates a diseased condition gives us better life [Like good healthy scalp etc] from his experience & search, is also a Scientist.

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

Swansont,

You are a Maestro in the art of discussion. The Honesty & Technique is mesmerizing. It is just lovely. I admire you for that. How do you do that? Presumably, it is the persona behind. How I miss you when I encounter a bad argument? There ARE others like that, on this forum. We get to learn from all you wonderful people. This Forum helps us to certainly evolve into better persons.

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

Then how did it get accepted over the prior dogma? By definition evidence isn't needed for dogma so how did they judge the two theories? A coin flip perhaps?

Well I hear that scientists do like flipping coins.

Old theories are Rejected & new ones are Accepted due to the inconsistencies in the older ones and the remedies to those inconsistencies in the new ones. That is not a dogma. However, when a theory becomes widely accepted, people tend to believe it as Absolute and dependencies comes into play. It is there, where it turns into a Dogma. Then, when a new theory emerges that answers the inconsistencies in the prevailing one, the strong belief that the prevalent theory is absolute and other factors like the human weaknesses of the believers, which are nothing but Dogmas start opposing fervently the new theory. This is worse than flipping coins because it is very wrong, whereas flipping coins has almost a fifty-fifty percent chance of being Right.

All that matters is evidence at explaining phenomena and making more accurate predictions. If a new theory comes out that answers all the old question better than the old model or answers all those questions and more it will be adopted. It's always wrong to a degree, but it's less wrong than the other ideas.

I have given adequate Logical, Falsifiable, Predictive methods. In addition, it also eliminates the wrong hypothesis that Space & Time get curved and also proves that all observations are not Relative and also keeps the better working part of GR unharmed.

Because what you think the prevailing thought is is incorrect. You shouldn't expect an answer to a loaded question.

Disingenuous false claim.

Tell what you think the prevailing thought is; and show it is correct.

Tell what you think that I think the prevailing thought is; and show it is comparatively different and so incorrect.

People make Disingenuous false claims to win arguments even if it amounts to suppressing Evidence & Truth. I have given such stringent Logical, Falsifiable and Evidential facts that it is now beyond the capacity of such Disingenuous false claims & crap, tricky arguments, to suppress the Truth in them.

Don't play games with Science, you won't succeed.

Place any of your further opinions on the relevant thread and discuss.

. . . You shouldn't expect an answer to a loaded question.

You are falsely labeling it as a loaded question. It is a simplest question.

How can Space & Time get curved while there is stringent evidence that they cannot curve?

Place any of your further opinions on the relevant thread and discuss.

No it's not. Prejudice is judging based on personal characteristics, it doesn't involve ideas. Knowledge of the fact most ideas are wrong is not prejudice so the false equivalence stands.

Sure, knowledge of the fact that most ideas are wrong is not prejudice; but to be Reluctant to all new ideas on the basis of that knowledge that most ideas are wrong is Prejudice.

Give me some examples of when this happens.

It is you, who said that there is Reluctance because most ideas are wrong. And you want ME to give examples?

In general reluctance enhances science because it causes one to constantly refine an idea. I assume you mean reluctance to even look at ideas, in which case I agree. Good thing that doesn't really happen.

Scrutiny causes one to constantly refine an idea. Reluctance neglects Scrutiny.

Meaning I read it and it didn't add anything to the discussion. We're not talking morality, society, etc.

Any discussion that does not contain/consider/bear in it, morality and well-being of society as its ingredients; is useless and at times harmful.

Actually skipping things would logically take use further. If I had to go from point A to point C I could get there faster by skipping B.

See I can twist an argument to make it mean whatever I want to.

No, you can't.

No amount of twisting & turning has the ability to holdback Truth. Truth is self-evident. Like;

When one twists & turns to win an argument,

The onlooker recognizes that the argument was won because of the twisting & turning and not because that it is the Truth.

When an argument is won by twisting & turning, only the cult followers become jubilant that they won the game by hook or crook.

However, the Prudent recognize that Truth was not Respected.

Moreover, a very big harm is done to the credibility of the winner & jubilant. They are rendered into, Twisters & Turners, and into ones who don't Respect Truth but Respect their self egoistic Winning.

I never try to win an argument. I just make my point. And try to recognize my wrongs reflected in the opposing views. I leave the Judgments to society. Who am I to judge for society? The society is to judge what is good for it; whether it should take the sides of the jubilant winners OR the Truth. Therefore, I don't have Twistings & Turnings in my arsenal. The only weapon I have in my arsenal to fight Untruth is Logic. I love it. Because it handles itself. It doesn't require any effort from my side. Truth does neither need the help of slight Mortals. Because nor the slight mortals have the capacity to harm it.

For me Life is not a winning game. It is seeking Truth. That is the real win. Winning by suppressing Truth is not Winning, it is in fact Loosing, because the suppressers are misguided.

They chose Ego in place of Truth.

So you twist arguments to make them mean whatever you want to. A Trickster.

You think you can make Science into whatever you want to?

No, you can't.

One can sell dogmas by that, not Science.

The old priests used to do that.

They used to Twist & Turn arguments to establish whatever dogmas they wanted.

Nevertheless, like Einstein said, "an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple of Science";The God rules this world.

His angel doesn't let tricksters to make this world into whatever they want to.

And the angel's name is Logic.

And eager acceptance is the answer of the ignorant.

I have not said anything about Accepting. I have always talked about Perusal. And I have given reasons for doing that.

Making False claims & Twisting sentences & suppressing Truth to win is the answer of Egotist.

. . . There will be a flood of responses defending an existing Theory, when it is criticized. However, when a new way of seeing things is stated; the Reluctance comes into play. The Wrongs/Rights of a new thought are not at all discussed/looked into.

It's getting repetitive but I say again, example?

My thread that proves that space-time curvature is wrong.

The attachment, on Post#158, which is a very important part of the thoughts I am expressing, has not been scrutinized.

Anecdote =/= evidence.

You gave the Shakespearean anecdote. I gave the living example, the evidence.

I have looked at your thread of your idea and it seemed to go the route of my first example I gave to proximity.

You are using the same methods of some speculators that you are so intensely criticizing, to denounce any idea; Using the invalid argument.

Show that my thread is similar to your model, in the relevant thread, by comparatively identifying the similarities and prove that your intentions in denouncing my idea with invalid argument are not Disingenuous.

No it's not. If everyone took the time to look at every single idea everyone comes up with nothing would get done. That's why there are ways to properly test/contact someone to test an idea. They will be perused, but they will cannot be expected be perused by anyone the person with the idea wants tell.

They can at least be perused intently on a Forum like this.

[The pseudo-scientist: What the Crap? You crap speculators telling me to scrutinize something that opposes the very theory I think is Right and want me to agree that YOU are RIGHT & I am WRONG. Never!!!

The offbeat thinker: Sorry I didn't tell you. I asked the SCIENTIST (the true knowledge/truth seeker) who respects Truth above his/her personal preference. I know that those who live ON Science won't help it Change, lest it (the help which brought the change) jeopardize what they lived for or what they made their living on.]

The persons using their skills to establish whatever they want to, with the slightest Regards & Respects for Science/Truth, are more Detrimental & Disgusting to Science & Society than the Unknowing & Adamant persons who come up with new ideas without logical reasons to support and send unsolicited emails.

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

I think we are churning the same thing again & again. The argument is becoming stale. I suppose, we should stop here & let it be perused by interested readers, and let them take their own judgment.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Anilkumar

**swansont** · September 25, 2012

I don't see which part of Post#32 implies that, I asked for 'acceptance of new, untested and half-formed ideas'.

No, that wasn't the issue. It was the perusal of new ideas that had not been a point of discussion until you brought it up.

I don't see how anybody would be interested to know 'Why UNTESTED ideas are not accepted?'

Because then the question itself gives the answer. The answer would have been simple.

'Untested ideas are not accepted because they are not tested'.

Which is not unlike the answer that others have given.

I don't see how far it is exact, to apply this on me. Because I have clarified in my earlier posts that,

I added that part because, it is a logical extension [you too agree on that]. I added that part because that it is not wrong to discussing on a logical extension of the original question.

I didn't claim it was wrong to add that part. I said it was wrong to apply anything I had previously said to the discussion of the new point, since I had been addressing a different point — the acceptance of new ideas.

whoamiz · September 26, 2012

Accepting a new idea would be easier for people who wants to learn more and correct there own mistakes as those who can't, probably has/have there reasons e.g. a community growing up knowing that a fork is called a spoon, if a person is the only one who says that a fork is called a fork then they might burn him alive. For the people who went out of that community and goes back they will also be able to tell that a fork is called a fork!. I'll just leave to your imagination what happened to the "person".

Anilkumar · September 28, 2012

. . . I said it was wrong to apply anything I had previously said to the discussion of the new point, since I had been addressing a different point — the acceptance of new ideas.

I was addressing the Logical extension of what you had previously said and also declared that you did not say it but instead I had added it. Does that take me into the area of wrong? Isn't that rational?

I went for the Logical extension/Alteration/Correction i.e. from;

Reluctance to ACCEPTANCE as most ideas are wrong --> Reluctance to PERUSAL as most ideas are wrong; because,

when wrong ideas too are taken into the fold, the question of ACCEPTANCE doesn't arise, so then we need to shift to PERUSAL.

When all Wrong+Right ideas are taken into the fold, by saying there is Reluctance to ACCEPTANCE as most ideas are wrong [you did not say there is Reluctance to ACCEPTANCE as most ideas are Untested. Then the issue would have been different and there would be no dispute. You said there is Reluctance to ACCEPTANCE as most ideas are wrong. Therefore, since the wrong ideas too were taken into the fold, I had to extend/alter/correct ACCEPTANCE to PERUSAL]; How can one ask for the ACCEPTANCE of all new [Wrong+Right] ideas? One can then only ask for the PERUSAL of new ideas.

In whole, what I was saying is;

If there is Reluctance to new ideas because most of them are Untested, it is Right. They should be tested before they are accepted.

However if there is, Reluctance to _ _ _ ? _ _ _ New ideas because most of them are Wrong; it is wrong. They must be intently Perused and the Right segregated from the Wrong and the Right ones should be pushed further and the Wrong ones must be corrected to educate.

[i am keeping a blank & a question mark because; if I fill the word ACCEPTANCE there, it would be logically wrong. Moreover, if I fill the word PERUSAL, you would say, [i]"I didn't say it"[/i] and allege that I am making a straw man argument.]

In addition, if we don't use the word PERUSAL but use the word ACCEPTANCE and say;

"There is reluctance to ACCEPT new ideas because most of them are wrong." [Not because they are Untested, but because most of them are wrong]. This would be a straw-man argument; because nobody is asking for the ACCEPTANCE of ALL ideas [Wrong+Right]. [You brought the WRONG IDEAS into the fold by saying "most of the ideas are wrong" and so I altered ACCEPTANCE to PERUSAL].

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

Accepting a new idea would be easier for people who wants to learn more and correct there own mistakes . . .

. . . [and who] diligently scrutinize the new idea sensing inconsistencies if any and discuss patiently to arrive at the Truth.

The qualities of the Scientist are: Curiosity, Inquisitiveness, Diligence, On the lookout & Eager to Acquire New Knowledge with the wakefulness that there is a dearth of Truth about the world around us.

I don't understand where RELUCTANCE fits into this. And we often find Derisive-ness too along with it.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Anilkumar

Sign In

Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

netizenk

John Cuthber

Anilkumar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information