Getting Through The Thicket

[discover]

I've decided to post a serious question to those Biophysics Scientists out there: If an ordinary layperson has what he/she believes to be a solid theory related to the dynamics of single cells, would you honestly be willing to listen to their theory?

 

Do you think that a layperson could know more about this subject matter than a scientist in this related field?

 

What would a layperson have to do to grab your attention?

 

Thank you ahead of time-

[dmaiski]

i would listen to anyone who has an idea, not because the idea may be right (and it can be)

but because the idea may give me an insight into something else that i never thought about that way

discovery isn't about putting in the work, or doing the research (it dose help thought)

its about getting that "[expletive redacted], how could i be so [expletive redacted] stupid and not notice that" moment, when everything you know comes together

 

your theory may be right, most are proven wring in the end (new information and such)

but it will give rise to new theories, better theories

its the reason we make theories in the first place, we accept them to be wrong and ask someone else to prove it

 

 

well that's just a bit op philosophizing, go ahead and post it please

by the way if you want to grab a scientists attention, hitting them with a light post usually dose the trick (or waiting till they walk into one)

scientists are very self centred, so if you have a specific one you want to contact send them an email that has the name of what your theory on it and the theory inside

if they are interested in the field they will look at it (or at least i would) then maybe read the contents, and most likely ask a lot of questions about it later, or tell you your wrong

 

oh and a last bit of advice, scientists don’t trust the word maybe, like numbers, and clearly outlined logic

also they like pictures that have explanations tied to them (usually they call them diagrams, but they’re closer to a 4 year old's doodles, that’s why you need an explanation of what is going on in the picture)

 

 

Edited September 12, 2012 by dmaiski

[discover]

Thank you very much Dmaiski for your response. I certainly appreciate it.

 

In responding to your posting, I have tried to reach out to over one hundred scientists in Physics and Biology. I received only two phone calls from retired professors, both were kind enough to tell me that they thought my theory may be right.

 

When I see how difficult it is just trying to get someone to reply to your inquiry, its no wonder new world discoveries aren't taking place.

 

I'm not going to post my theory here. I am searching for the right open-minded person who I feel can help me and I them to benefit the world best. I may never find him/her, but I'm willing to look for them every so often. That's why I posted on this site.

 

Thanks again for kind words and thoughtful insight..

[dmaiski]

sounds like love

dont worry it took 48 years to find the higgs boson

 

and now i'm actually curious as to what your idea is

email me at dmitri.maiski@gmail.com if you want

im not a professor but i do have a MSc in genetics

 

[jp255]

 

I'm not going to post my theory here. I am searching for the right open-minded person who I feel can help me and I them to benefit the world best. I may never find him/her, but I'm willing to look for them every so often. That's why I posted on this site.

 

What better way is there to get your theory to someone who is open-minded than to spread your theory everywhere and anywhere you can? It would likely reach said person faster if you took this approach rather than keping it to yourself, no?

[Jens]

I'm not going to post my theory here. I am searching for the right open-minded person who I feel can help me and I them to benefit the world best. I may never find him/her, but I'm willing to look for them every so often. That's why I posted on this site.

 

You might have a look at priormat or other similar offers (I do not want to make an ad here. It is just to show what is existing. I have no personal relation with this company). For a very small amount of money and time, you can secure your intellectual property.

...and then still publish it here

[Derin]

It's always worth listening to a new idea from anyone, but it's worth noting that in a lot of biology, the general public's understanding of a theory isn't even close to the actual theory. So it depends how you define "layperson", how likely it is that an idea is going to contain major fallacies. It is not necessary to be a professional (that is, paid) scientist, it is not necessary to be published, and it is not necessary to have a formal university education... but all of these things help immensely, because they tell the person you're talking to that you're less likely to make amateur mistakes and thus more likely to be worth their time.

 

You MUST be familiar with the field you're trying to affect. You MUST be well-read and relatively up-to-date. Before you approach anybody else with your ideas, troubleshoot them yourself. I assume you've already done this. When you approach a scientist with your ideas, here are the things they're going to be looking for:

 

- Lingo. You should use the language and tone used in the relevant field. This shows that you are reasonably well-read in the field.

- Referrence. Are you affiliated with another scientist that this scientist knows? The best way to do this from outside the field is to make friends with a Masters or PhD student (or even an undergraduate who is known by name) affiliated with the scientist. They don't have to be famous. You just have to not look like you're contacting them randomly. If you're affiliated with a university or business in the sciences you don't need this. It still helps but being in the sciences is enough to not be considered random. If you absolutely cannot get into their professional network, read their papers and open a dialogue about those first. And make sure you understand them!

- Avoid extremely basic mistakes. If you try to talk about current evolutionary theory and describe Lamarckian evolution, or if you talk about bacteria and protists as if they're the same thing (if you're going to lump them together just call them microbes instead), the scientist knows they're wasting their time. They might, if they're not busy and they like you, take the time to educate you, but they won't consider your ideas very reliable on their own.

- Don't tell people you're looking for an 'open-minded' person; it raises red flags. "Open-minded" has been used as code for "non-critical" and "gullible" for a long time and it sounds preemptively defensive; it makes your argument look weak before you've even made it. Scientists know the standards of open-mindedness and critical thinking in their field. They assume that you do too. Phrases like this throw doubt on that.

- Explain things as clearly and concisely as possible. With diagrams as necessary. Don't try to be fancy. A little fancy is necessary in a paper or presentation; before then it looks amateur. Don't be vague. There's time to be vague and brainstorm after you've piqued interest. It's considered good manners and professionalism at this stage to be as clear and easy-to-understand as possible. Trying to look smart with flowery language won't impress scientists, it just looks amateurish.

 

EDIT:

Also, I forgot -- asking for advice or information goes over a lot better than asking to partner up for something. There are exceptioons, but as a general rule, scientists like to share information. They're a lot more likely to answer questions and help troubleshoot ideas than get involved in another capacity.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Derin

[CharonY]

Good points. Also it should be added that the whatever one proposes should advance the knowledge in the field to some extent and also provide data. For instance and alternative interpretation of existing data may be nice, but if there is no data to support it, it is only one of gazillion ideas that are thrown around and never followed-up in the lab.

It is different if a problem has been well-recognized as such and the theory could provide testable hypotheses to solve the issue.