Why (science) world is afraid of paradigm changes?

[mississippichem]

No no! eventually was accepted? That's your opinion of "rules" in this topic. I say that any reasonable scientific case with resistance qualifies, accepted or not.

 

Then how are you to show that the "resisted" work is valid? Don't you agree that work being resisted and then later being confirmed to be incorrect is a success for the scientific process? Should we just accept any crap that comes along? How are we to separate valid work from quackery?

 

Mm... I can only answer from my perspective. I do know where others are and to me it says "dead end".

 

Your perspective is of no consequence as you have already stated that you are not a member of any scientific community! If you are not taking the time and effort to read journals, read technical blogs, or discuss with colleagues how can you make any claim to know what the current state of affairs is with respect to work being accepted/rejected? Phi for All was telling you that, in this modern era of rapid communication, the review process has sped up a lot and now we can sit on our couches from home and judge the validity of work by simply reading the work on our laptops and phones. Then we can use email, forums, and social media to share our opinions and debate topics. How is this not a good thing? Should we go back to writing paper with a quill pin and papyrus and having to hope that the church approves of our work?

 

You keep moving goalpost, albeit subtly. This is not an honest way to debate or discuss.

[illuusio]

You keep moving goalpost, albeit subtly. This is not an honest way to debate or discuss.

 

Ok, we go along with Dr. Swanson here. Accepted is the key word.

 

Ok... here is an example from my country (Finland) http://www.physnews.com/nano-physics-news/cluster246567486/

It took twenty years for that theory to break. Talking about resistance

Edited October 17, 2012 by illuusio

[tmpst]

Ok, we go along with Dr. Swanson here. Accepted is the key word.

 

Ok... here is an example from my country (Finland) http://www.physnews....uster246567486/

It took twenty years for that theory to break. Talking about resistance

Did he present his work in 1992? It seems like the paper has been published in 2012, so where did you get the twenty years? And who has resisted his work?

[Bignose]

I say that any reasonable scientific case with resistance qualifies, accepted or not.

 

Define resistance. Because if you use a fairly liberal definition of resistance, I daresay every paper experiences it. Very rarely is a paper accepted as-is the very first time. Very rarely is a paper presented at a conference and no questions are asked. No idea is accepted without a critique and evaluation of the evidence supporting it. All of these could be seen as 'resistances'. But, all are also reasons why science is exceptionally strong today, compared to most any other time in human history. Probably not perfect, but far, far superior to the vast majority of human history.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I don't know that field enough to say anything of it or it's events. So to you, science is an utopia where everything go smoothly, right? Are you ignoring some cases in history of science, specially in case of major paradigm changes. Tectonic revolution is a minor event.

 

 

 

LOL Of course not. But when you have an opportunity to see the evidence and you still ignore it, that's a resistance!

 

I must say I have noticed often an aggressive stance given to new ideas offered within " THE SCIENCE FORUMS ". This does appear to be driven by a scientific method approach applied in its strictest form of EVIDENCE and MATHS coupled with a little rank pulling. Although I understand this approach, coming from an engineering background, there were times in my design career when rather than calculate I would take a " trial and error " approach, saying I wonder what will happen if I try "this component " oops try another to see if there is any improvement. This has often led to an improved design. This technique is sort of used in genetic engineering where computer programs design things that we would not even think of, by an iterative and change and generation advantage . Is there not a case for research scientists not chilling out a bit , and let a bit of fresh air, in by taking a "Socratic method" of a series of questions and answers led to a logical conclusion ( by thesis countered by anti thesis ). This is a good method of generating new ideas and propositions ( ie Speculations) which more rugged and rigorous treatment by other scientists of specialized bent and mathematical prowess can "bust a gut on " while the thinkers busy themselves with potential new ideas. Surely one is free to state " this is just a possible idea " and not state " this is proven fact and here is my evidence " Provided statements are framed in this way, would it not lighten up the forum to more debate which by definition is surely what a FORUM is " a meeting or medium for the OPEN discussion of subjects of public interest "

 

 

 

 

[Ringer]

There would be much greater differences with free fall times when the setup is bigger (longer drop -> bigger time difference).

 

Good, I was hoping for this response. This is the reason most of these ideas are not taken seriously. A very small difference is found, note it's not even statistically significant, and is expected to be groundbreaking. When the general response is, 'meh' or, more often, it's said that the results are not significant and mean nothing the person with the idea gets offended. You say that a bigger set-up would give better results, it would also be true that more runs would give more accurate results. Since this seems like a fairly simple set up it shouldn't be hard for the experimenter to run many many trials or set it up with a higher fall. If that is true why has this not been run more than 20 time for this example. Many times the ideas have had 0 trials and the presenter still gets offended. A paradigm change needs paradigm changing evidence. It doesn't need words, insignificant results, etc. It needs evidence and the ability to explain the current evidence better than the accepted model. Your link shows one experiment with insignificant results and is poorly written at that. It's not about being afraid to accept the idea, it's the idea doesn't have what even ESP experiments have shown.

[swansont]

No no! eventually was accepted? That's your opinion of "rules" in this topic. I say that any reasonable scientific case with resistance qualifies, accepted or not.

But not accepting science that's wrong isn't resistance, so you have to somehow demonstrate that the science was correct, which requires evidence.

 

Surely one is free to state " this is just a possible idea " and not state " this is proven fact and here is my evidence " Provided statements are framed in this way, would it not lighten up the forum to more debate which by definition is surely what a FORUM is " a meeting or medium for the OPEN discussion of subjects of public interest "

Yes, one is free to do that, and those discussions are generally less heated. However, the discussions are usually presented from the vantage point of current science being wrong and the alternative being right, presented with no actual model and no evidence, and often with only a very specific application of the idea in mind — which causes the idea to fail when applied to a wider range of conditions.

 

However, responses will still include "no, that idea is wrong and here's why", at which point one must abandon the idea. But we never seem to see that happen.

[illuusio]

 

 

However, responses will still include "no, that idea is wrong and here's why", at which point one must abandon the idea. But we never seem to see that happen.

 

LOL That IS an interesting phenomenon. It must be a human feature. Of course I'm not referring in any way to myself...

 

 

 

 

Did he present his work in 1992? It seems like the paper has been published in 2012, so where did you get the twenty years? And who has resisted his work?

 

Aa... the history of this theory was presented in Finnish science magazine. Maybe it can be found by Google. Resistance came from peer reviewers.

 

Good, I was hoping for this response. This is the reason most of these ideas are not taken seriously. A very small difference is found, note it's not even statistically significant, and is expected to be groundbreaking. When the general response is, 'meh' or, more often, it's said that the results are not significant and mean nothing the person with the idea gets offended. You say that a bigger set-up would give better results, it would also be true that more runs would give more accurate results. Since this seems like a fairly simple set up it shouldn't be hard for the experimenter to run many many trials or set it up with a higher fall. If that is true why has this not been run more than 20 time for this example. Many times the ideas have had 0 trials and the presenter still gets offended. A paradigm change needs paradigm changing evidence. It doesn't need words, insignificant results, etc. It needs evidence and the ability to explain the current evidence better than the accepted model. Your link shows one experiment with insignificant results and is poorly written at that. It's not about being afraid to accept the idea, it's the idea doesn't have what even ESP experiments have shown.

 

I don't know what's behind of this path of events and experiments. Maybe those DePalma "boys" didn't want that much scientific "glory" after all. I mean Bruce DePalma surely knew what was required from good solid experiments. There was one motivation, money, which might have been the force major and which overruled science methods.

 

Define resistance. Because if you use a fairly liberal definition of resistance, I daresay every paper experiences it. Very rarely is a paper accepted as-is the very first time. Very rarely is a paper presented at a conference and no questions are asked. No idea is accepted without a critique and evaluation of the evidence supporting it. All of these could be seen as 'resistances'. But, all are also reasons why science is exceptionally strong today, compared to most any other time in human history. Probably not perfect, but far, far superior to the vast majority of human history.

 

I agree. Maybe there should be a cut off time defined. Year? two years? ten? Every one of those cut off times provide examples to this thread.

[Phi for All]

Aa... the history of this theory was presented in Finnish science magazine. Maybe it can be found by Google. Resistance came from peer reviewers.

Those damn peer reviewers! They seem to value the integrity of science and their own credibility above the ideas of the next Galileo.

[granpa]

the simplest error correcting code is a multidimensional parity code.

 

when given a set of data with lots of errors one uses the code to determine which bits are probably wrong and then correct them

and then you repeat the process with the newly generated set of data with fewer errors in it.

 

you would think it would be that simple but it isnt.

 

to make those first corrections one must make certain assumptions.

then when you repeat the process you are making more assumptions based on your first assumptions.

repeated indefinitely this can and does result in the data being "corrected" incorrectly.

 

modern codes are very careful to go back and remove any assumtions before going on to the next level.

 

Put simply, you make assumptions to arrive at new data but then you must be careful to make sure that this new data doesnt require you to drop your original assumptions.

 

when there are many stages to the process its easy to forget what assumptions you first made

Edited October 18, 2012 by granpa

[illuusio]

Those damn peer reviewers! They seem to value the integrity of science and their own credibility above the ideas of the next Galileo.

 

Another pearl to collect High five!

[tmpst]

Aa... the history of this theory was presented in Finnish science magazine. Maybe it can be found by Google. Resistance came from peer reviewers.

It is pretty obvious to me that you are confusing the scientific process with unwanted and unfounded resistance.

[swansont]

LOL That IS an interesting phenomenon. It must be a human feature. Of course I'm not referring in any way to myself...

No, of course not. I can't envision you admitting to any shortcoming in your conjecture.

[illuusio]

No, of course not. I can't envision you admitting to any shortcoming in your conjecture.

 

Can't answer to that (Gag order).

 

 

 

 

It is pretty obvious to me that you are confusing the scientific process with unwanted and unfounded resistance.

 

Right... there has been never unfounded resistance. Is that what you are impling?

[Ophiolite]

Right... there has been never unfounded resistance. Is that what you are impling?

Illusio - resitance is fundamental to the scientific method.

 

When a researcher conceives of an idea it is their duty to rigorously attack their own idea, to probe it for weaknesses.

If it passes muster they may either run some experiments, or explore the idea with colleagues. Again the effort is to probe and test and resist.

Then attempts to publish and the barrage of attack from referees and editors.

And once it is published the full weight of others in the field is released.

 

Resitance? If you want to call it that, but most would call it the scientific method.......and it is afar cry from the topic of this thread, which is that scientists are afraid to change paradigms.

[illuusio]

Resitance? If you want to call it that, but most would call it the scientific method.......and it is afar cry from the topic of this thread, which is that scientists are afraid to change paradigms.

 

Fair enough. But there is bottleneck with publishing. Few referees decide what to publish. If send paper is very controversial there will be prejudices among referees. And that generates needless resistance.

Edited October 18, 2012 by illuusio

[Arete]

Fair enough. But there is bottleneck with publishing. Few referees decide what to publish. If send paper is very controversial there will be prejudices among referees. And that generates needless resistance.

 

Ok so going back here:

 

I have been denied from the peer review process

 

 

Does this mean you submitted your paper and were desk rejected by the editor? or are you calling the opinions of this forum "peer review"?

 

because if its a) you got peer reviewed you didn't pass the peer review process. Let us know where you submitted and what the reason for desk rejection was, and we can evaluate whether you were treated fairly. If its b) you haven't been denied peer review.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Arete

[swansont]

Fair enough. But there is bottleneck with publishing. Few referees decide what to publish. If send paper is very controversial there will be prejudices among referees. And that generates needless resistance.

Another unsupported assertion. Many papers are rejected for various reasons, but what has not been shown is that the objections to publication are unwarranted. If the referee comments/objections result in an improved paper, that is not needless resistance.

[Phi for All]

Fair enough. But there is bottleneck with publishing. Few referees decide what to publish. If send paper is very controversial there will be prejudices among referees. And that generates needless resistance.

If the paper sent is very controversial flawed there will be prejudices objections among referees.

Fixed that for you, no charge.

[illuusio]

 

 

Does this mean you submitted your paper and were desk rejected by the editor? or are you calling the opinions of this forum "peer review"?

 

because if its a) you got peer reviewed you didn't pass the peer review process. Let us know where you submitted and what the reason for desk rejection was, and we can evaluate whether you were treated fairly. If its b) you haven't been denied peer review.

 

I was rejected but the "thing" was immature (so it was a fair rejection). I'll tell you when I do submit it again and how it goes. Enough about me.

 

Fixed that for you, no charge.

 

You are funny!

[swansont]

I was rejected but the "thing" was immature (so it was a fair rejection).

And thus it was not an example of resistance. Meaning thus far your only example is one in which the data do not show that there is any valid result, as the results overlap, statistically. Which represents a complete failure to support your premise.

[illuusio]

And thus it was not an example of resistance. Meaning thus far your only example is one in which the data do not show that there is any valid result, as the results overlap, statistically. Which represents a complete failure to support your premise.

 

So be it! There is no resistance in science community what-so-ever... good to know

[Phi for All]

So be it! There is no resistance in science community what-so-ever... good to know

More extreme, childish arguments. Did you stamp your foot when you wrote that?

[mississippichem]

illuusio,

 

What criteria would you use to distinguish valid scientific work from nonsense?

[swansont]

So be it! There is no resistance in science community what-so-ever... good to know

Is this you being deliberately obtuse? Because, of course, I said no such thing. I only said that you have utterly failed to make your case.