New theories are trash ?????

[Bignose]

But scientists are still people and all people have a hard time seeing what they don't expect even when they are trained in proper scientific observation.

But, this isn't supported by the many paradigm shifts and large unexpected discoveries that have come from scientists....

 

What you are essentially saying then is that, in your opinion, paradigm shifts and large discoveries don't happen often enough?

 

Scientists are indeed human. There are politics and jealousy and sometimes nasty behavior. There are people who lie about results. It does happen.

 

I don't see how any of this changes the fundamental stance that before anyone should accept something, there should be corroborating evidence to support it. And scientists are naturally trained to be a little tougher to judge the evidence and ask for more evidence than the average person.

 

The needing evidence to support an idea doesn't change whether that evidence is easy to see, or difficult to see, or whether that difficulty is due to time, money, equipment, or psychology.

[cladking]

But why? That's not the subject of the discussion. We're talking about scientists doing science or wannabe scientists proposing wannabe science.

 

 

I'm sure we're using a different definition of science but we're apparently using a different definition of scient as well.

 

To me a scientist is anybody who engages in science especially for the purpose of understanding or furthering it. Apparently you are drawing a distinction between professionals and amateurs and excluding those not working on the cutting edge as well. Einstein was a clerk in the patent office. But this is a digression.

 

I was merely trying to answer your points regarding human behavior and who is a scientist and who is not is irrelevant to that point. Truth and discovery of natural law and reality is independent of the idea or individual which (who) led to it.

 

Human beings and most animals engage in repetitious behavior that is habit. We mistake the habits of thought as intelligence and this is disproven by the ability of some individuals to engage in conversation even after brain injury or degradation from other causes. Of course anything that applies to humans applies to modern scientists. Anything that applies to all animals applies to modern scientists.

 

People are on auto-pilot. These aren't my words but they are accurate in my estimation. I'm not sure "habit" is entirely relevant to my points but it is the kind of thing we mistake for intelligence. It does affect scientists on and off the job because it affects "all" animals. It is relevant to why new ideas tend to be rejected out of hand.

[xyzt]

But, this isn't supported by the many paradigm shifts and large unexpected discoveries that have come from scientists....

 

What you are essentially saying then is that, in your opinion, paradigm shifts and large discoveries don't happen often enough?

 

What he and his sidekicks are saying that that paradigm shifts also come from people who post on the internet. We are the bad guys for tearing down their "paradigm shifting" theories.

[cladking]

 

You'e right that this isn't about scientists being more intelligent. t's about a way of thinking, which includes certain rigor that is lacking in many other endeavors humans undertake, and pretty much the opposite of some of them.

 

 

This "rigor" is learned in language and it takes place in language. It was invented by someone who was employing language in his mind. It seen from the perspectives of language.

 

Yes. Science is a "way of thinking" and has its own language to some extent. It is ONLY these reasons that it works at all. Modern language is incapable of the kind of communication that would allow scientists to build on the work of others. This is mitigated by scientific language, scientific logic (math), and strict definitions of terms employed in a highly limited scope.

 

I believe scientific communication can be further improved and this will be important going forward.

 

And yet it's fallacious to extrapolate such thinking beyond what you observe. So this is moot unless you show it happening in science

 

.

I made several points in what you quoted and am not sure which you are addressing.

 

Bull. Science is rife with discoveries of things that were not expected. Radioactivity was not expected. Alpha particles rebounding from a gold foil was not expected. The peculiar deflection of silver atoms in an inhomogeneous magnetic field was not expected. The muon was unexpected (prompting I. I. Rabi to ask, "Who ordered that?"). The expanding universe was not expected.

 

 

It would be easy to just think of all science as the exception to the rule that humans are merely hairless apes. The first time a human thought of something to improve his life and tell others about it we undertook a path of progress and exceptions simply accumulate as human progress. The FACT that people don't see what they don't expect is not disproven by the exceptions.

 

 

 

 

 

I come to the same conclusion than you, but from a different point of view, from a particular idea I had about mass. Its very interesting! I have to give it a second though to be able to join the two point of views. As you say, it is not easy to talk about a new idea, because it is necessarily imprecise, and the words don't come easily. And it is not easy to cope with two point of views at the same time either, in fact, i believe it is impossible, I believe that we have to change from one point of view to the other and notice the differences that appears naturally.

 

 

I came from a very highly indirect route to this point. It is probably the most highly circuitous possible route to this point.

 

One of the things I tripped over on this protracted and continuing stumble you'll find fascinating;

 

http://www.aldokkan.com/art/proverbs.htm

[Le Repteux]

We see the progress that we made, but we can't see the one we are going to make.

1. Yet , you keep pushing them. Why?

Simply because I like them, and because I am not satisfied with the arguments against them.

 

2. Why do you think that is the case? Must have something to do with point 1.

Being told that you are a crackpot is not an argument, and it does not help you to understand you are wrong. It only satisfies the ego of the person that does so. It is a superiority move, an instinctive reaction, not an intelligent one.

 

3. Your "ideas" have been shot full of holes multiple times.

Its not a reason to call me a crackpot: nothing is!

 

4. In mainstream science we don't. If, on the other hand, you keep pushing your fringe ideas, the only solution is to start building the prototypes, running the experiments, yourself. No scientist would waste his time trying to build prototypes from flawed theories, like yours.

 

It is a possibility that I will have no help from scientific community, and quite an important one, I admit!

[Strange]

I don't consider that my ideas are right, and I am nevertheless considered as crackpot without my ideas being properly studied. How do you explain that?

 

I haven't looked in detail at your ideas. From what I remember they were without any evidential or theoretical support (i.e. just stuff you made up) and contradicted by evidence. Like others, you refuse to acknowledge this.

 

How can an engineer start to build a new structure while assuming that his idea might be wrong?

 

If you assume it is wrong, then you will make every effort to validate it. You will discover the flaws, fix them (test it again, and repeat) and your bridge might stay up.

 

If you assume it is right, you won't bother and the bridge will fall down.

 

When I was a test engineer our motto was "if it isn't tested it won't work". Now, obviously, it might work; but you can't rely on it so you have to assume that any untested feature will not work. That is the only safe option.

 

The question is: who is most likely to have untested features in their design, the engineer who assumes he is right, or the one who assumes he is wrong?

 

As I said, I am not assuming that, and I am still considered as a crackpot. How do you explain that.

 

Because you refuse to accept you might be wrong. You deny this is the case, in the same way that other "personal theorists" deny that they have been shown the evidence that contradicts their theory or the math that proves them wrong.

 

If you spend time in speculation/pseudoscience forums you see a common pattern emerging:

 

A. Here is my theory ...

B. That is incorrect for the following detailed reasons ...

C. Furthermore it is contradicted by the following evidence ...

A. So if no one can show why my idea is wrong, it must be correct.

B. No it is wrong as stated above and furthermore ...

C. There is more evidence against your idea ...

A. I don't understand why there are all these personal attacks. Why can't anyone just show why my idea is wrong?

etc.

 

Look around on this forum. You will see this happening all the time. (Perhaps in this very thread...)

 

Yes you do, but if it is a whole new structure, there still will be a doubt, no?

 

Of course there is always doubt. Scientific theories are never proven, just not disproved (yet). Engineering solutions are never guaranteed correct, just tested to a high enough level to give confidence that it is worth spending millions of dollars or it is safe enough.

 

Modern language is incapable of the kind of communication that would allow scientists to build on the work of others.

 

And yet they seem to do it. Weird. It is almost as if you are wrong.

Its not a reason to call me a crackpot: nothing is!

 

Your continued denial of the fact that your idea has been shot full of holes is what makes you appear similar to all the other crackpots out there.

[xyzt]

 

Simply because I like them, and because I am not satisfied with the arguments against them.

Yes, the crackpot trademark is never to accept that his ideas have been refuted and to continue plastering them all over the internet, despite the ever increasing embarrassment caused during their refutation.

[cladking]

 

What you are essentially saying then is that, in your opinion, paradigm shifts and large discoveries don't happen often enough?

 

 

Not quite. The only paradigms that need to change are those which are incorrect. To some extent it can be argued that paradigms are constructs and shouldn't exist at all but the fact is humans need a model for complicated phenomena to think about it at all.

 

I believe a lot of the problem with the inability to see what isn't expected can be mitigated by better recognizing it exists. Further there are common sense steps that can help. Of course scientists are already better at this than most people but one needn't look very hard to see that there is more room for improvement. A lot can be changed by changing perspectives. Even scientists can be very poor at seeing reality from more than a single perspective. We see what we know so a scientist will see what he learned in school and in the lab but will tend to overlook the myriad and extensive phenomena of which he is ignorant. Even scientists tend to believe in human omniscience.

The needing evidence to support an idea doesn't change whether that evidence is easy to see, or difficult to see, or whether that difficulty is due to time, money, equipment, or psychology.

 

 

I disagree.

 

Humans are trying to determine reality even though we've lost sight of this due to the nature of modern science and modern language. Reality isn't determined by a panel of experts, peers, or rave reviews in scientific journals. Reality isn't even determined by an individual or the language in which he produces the idea that leads to seeing it. Reality exists outside of humanity or a dead cats.

 

Of course human progress is about sharing information about reality so if one person "knows" something and can't communicate it or lacks the proof to be convincing then that reality can't help progress except to the degree it can be utilized by the individual.

 

Almost all new information (about reality) that fits with current beliefs will tend to be readily accepted. It will usually arise from those who are trained and funded in traditional ways. This makes it easier to accept and the logic required to understand it is an outgrowth of what's already known. Other ideas are difficult to grasp and some (like mine) require an entirely new perspective.

[Strange]

Humans are trying to determine reality even though we've lost sight of this due to the nature of modern science and modern language. Reality isn't determined by a panel of experts, peers, or rave reviews in scientific journals. Reality isn't even determined by an individual or the language in which he produces the idea that leads to seeing it. Reality exists outside of humanity or a dead cats.

 

This has little or nothing to do with science. You are talking about religion or philosophy (or maybe pseudoscience).

 

 

Other ideas are difficult to grasp and some (like mine) require an entirely new perspective.

 

It also requires evidence. There is no point expecting a "new perspective" when you have zero evidence beyond your own imagination. (Unless the new perspective is "believe this story I made up".)

Edited September 24, 2014 by Strange

[swansont]

I had said;

 

"Scientists are people. People can't see what they don't expect. Scientists don't see what they don't expect."

 

This is a virtual tautology and supported by a lot of research in the soft sciences. It is factual. I did not say scientists are less creative or inquisitive than other people. They are obviously not less creative or inquisitive than most people no matter how these terms are defined. The fact you could make a good case that artiusts turn out more painting on average than scientists do notwithstanding.

 

Of course they are trained to look for anomalous results. It's pretty much what scientists do. Of course scientists are better at seeing such things than most other people.

 

But scientists are still people and all people have a hard time seeing what they don't expect even when they are trained in proper scientific observation.

 

If you stick to the point and what I actually say then I will respond further.

If there's lots of research then it should be trivial to cite some of it. It needs to be relevant to the discussion, though. People not noticing a person dressed in a gorilla suit because they were focused on some other task is not really a good proxy for someone doing science.

 

Acknowledging that scientists are trained to look for anomalous results and are better than others at it seems to run counter to your previous claim that scientists don't see what they don't expect.

[Bignose]

Other ideas are difficult to grasp and some (like mine) require an entirely new perspective.

Then it should be easy to provide evidence for this new perspective.

 

That is what this all boils down to. Provide evidence.

[swansont]

How can an engineer start to build a new structure while assuming that his idea might be wrong?

I would hope that s/he wouldn't be building a new structure if the design was not based on sound and well-tested engineering principles. And if they are sound and well-tested engineering principles, why would one assume that they are wrong?

[Le Repteux]

I haven't looked in detail at your ideas. From what I remember they were without any evidential or theoretical support (i.e. just stuff you made up) and contradicted by evidence. Like others, you refuse to acknowledge this.

It is no reason to call me names. If you do so, it is because it gives you pleasure, the pleasure to feel superior, to belong to a superior group. If nobody would do so, we would not be discussing that subject here. We are all the same when it comes to instinct, when comes the time to protect ourselves or our community.

 

The question is: who is most likely to have untested features in their design, the engineer who assumes he is right, or the one who assumes he is wrong?

Were you calling names to those who believed they were right?

 

Of course there is always doubt. Scientific theories are never proven, just not disproved (yet). Engineering solutions are never guaranteed correct, just tested to a high enough level to give confidence that it is worth spending millions of dollars or it is safe enough.

Then do the same with me, doubt a little and I will be satisfied.

 

Your continued denial of the fact that your idea has been shot full of holes is what makes you appear similar to all the other crackpots out there.

 

Stop calling names and I wont mind being compared to others.

[cladking]

 

 

A. Here is my theory ...

B. That is incorrect for the following detailed reasons ...

C. Furthermore it is contradicted by the following evidence ...

A. So if no one can show why my idea is wrong, it must be correct.

B. No it is wrong as stated above and furthermore ...

C. There is more evidence against your idea ...

A. I don't understand why there are all these personal attacks. Why can't anyone just show why my idea is wrong?

etc.

 

 

 

I've been around message boards a long time and have won some arguments. Very few people can say they've won some arguments.

 

This is not the way it usually goes. I'd agree I've seen this pattern here a little bit but it doesn't exist elsewhere. What happens is people make statements that refute a paradigm and may have good or very poor logic and evidence. People respond often with irrelevancies that seem to work against belief in the original assertion. The "crackpot" comes back and addresses these concerns sometimes and often gets off onto long discussions about the irrelevancies. Rancor tends to increase the more the original idea is supported OR the more the "crackpot" fails to address direct questions and direct counterargument. Eventually it breaks down into name calling usually.

 

Obviously with hard science the truth is more determinable so this pattern is less pronounced here but it still exists to some extent. It's the nature of the beast. It is determined by human nature, the nature of human knowledge and the venue or the nature of message boards.

 

I like message boards because patience and persistence can win (and, of course, I can dress up my posts a little so I don't come off an idiot).

People simply don't understand that everything is perspective. Even things we often don't think of as having more than one vantage from which to see them change with perspective. Much of reality is not what we believe it to be but simply construct. I believe that some of the "crackpot" theories on the net have a significant possibility of being correct but it is invisible to people because of their perspectives and language; because the theories are outside of their experience and knowledge. There are a lot of very interesting ideas now days coming from many sources.

[swansont]

 

It would be easy to just think of all science as the exception to the rule that humans are merely hairless apes. The first time a human thought of something to improve his life and tell others about it we undertook a path of progress and exceptions simply accumulate as human progress. The FACT that people don't see what they don't expect is not disproven by the exceptions.

 

 

If the claim is that nobody sees what they don't expect (as an absolute, which is arguably how your statement was phrased), then yes, exceptions actually do disprove the statement. There is no way around this. If you claim something doesn't exist, and that something does exist (even one of them) then the statement is false.

 

If the claim is that people usually don't see what they don't expect, then my other answer is apropos: scientists are trained to do so, and the process of science is set up to catch these things. Either way your claim is bogus. What you say doesn't happen does, in fact, happen all of the time in science. Repeating your assertion doesn't change that.

[cladking]

 

Acknowledging that scientists are trained to look for anomalous results and are better than others at it seems to run counter to your previous claim that scientists don't see what they don't expect.

 

That scientists are better at seeing anomalous results doesn't change the fact that they still will usually see what they expect. At any given moment the brain is bombarded with all sorts of sensory input and there aren't enough hours in the day to sit down and analyze even one second of all this input. Seeing anomalies is often like finding a needle in a haystack. Scientists find more needles but they still see what they expect in between finding needles (or getting poked in my case).

[Bignose]

I believe that some of the "crackpot" theories on the net have a significant possibility of being correct but it is invisible to people because of their perspectives and language;

... and lack of evidence. Why do we keep forgetting that, cladking?

 

Strong evidence can be presented no matter what 'perspective' anyone has.

[Le Repteux]

I would hope that s/he wouldn't be building a new structure if the design was not based on sound and well-tested engineering principles. And if they are sound and well-tested engineering principles, why would one assume that they are wrong?

As Strange already said, there still is a doubt, nevertheless, the chance is taken, because there is benefit from taking chances, and it sort of creates pleasure in our minds, the pleasure to think that it will work. This is the pleasure that helps me to continue here, not the one that comes from being treated as a crackpot.

[Strange]

It is no reason to call me names.

 

I haven't called you any names.

 

 

Then do the same with me, doubt a little and I will be satisfied.

 

As far as I can tell, you have never provided any reason to consider your ideas. No supporting theory and no evidence.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Strange

[cladking]

Then it should be easy to provide evidence for this new perspective.

 

That is what this all boils down to. Provide evidence.

 

I can provide not only extensive evidence but proof that the existing paradigm is incorrect. But this all exists, except for the implications, within a very soft science where it simply isn't accepted. It isn't accepted because there is little physical evidence and it along with all the other evidence already has an interpretation so they don't need any stinkin' new interpretation. Never mind that the new interpretation much better explains the evidence and is able to make accurate predictions because it will upset almost all basic paradigms. There are a few tenets of the theory that I've never actually sat down and listed the evidence but only because it's difficult and would be very unconvinciung to people. Such as the contention that "intelligence" as it is percieved does not exist. I suppose someday I'll have to write this post as well but it is very far afield from my primary interest and discovery.

 

All I have is evidence. All human history and all human knowledge is evidence but the shift in perspective required to see it is even greater than the collapse of the paradigms that must occur. We are not what we think we are and this has reverberations throughout all human endeavor.

 

Perspective is everything and always has been. Modern language ignores perspective and always assumes a shared perspective. This is why science has it's own language and why ideas are very hard to judge on their merits.

[Strange]

As Strange already said, there still is a doubt, nevertheless, the chance is taken, because there is benefit from taking chances, and it sort of creates pleasure in our minds, the pleasure to think that it will work. This is the pleasure that helps me to continue here, not the one that comes from being treated as a crackpot.

 

In engineering, anyone who took a chance for the "pleasure in their minds" would soon be out of a job.

 

"What do you mean, you committed the company to $200 million manufacturing costs because it felt good!?"

 

We tend to rely on objective evidence. Not that different from science.

[Bignose]

I can provide not only extensive evidence but proof that the existing paradigm is incorrect. But this all exists, except for the implications, within a very soft science where it simply isn't accepted. It isn't accepted because there is little physical evidence and it along with all the other evidence already has an interpretation so they don't need any stinkin' new interpretation.

Then you need to gather more evidence and/or stronger evidence and/or demonstrate that the existing evidence fits your idea better. If what you say above is true, then you just need to keep doing it.

 

Sure, it won't be easy, but in the end, evidence is what wins out.

 

Disparaging all scientists based on your lone experience here isn't going to win you over any friends, though.

 

As you say yourself... it is all perspective. YOUR perspective is that scientists don't want to listen despite the evidence. But that doesn't ring true for all of us. I know and have known many very observant and very open to new evidence scientists. And, as swansont pointed out, the simple truth that science has continued to advance debunks your claims here.

[Le Repteux]

I haven't called you any names.

You let the others do so, and you approve their arguments when they defend their position about crackpots.

 

As far as I can tell, you have never provided any reason to consider your ideas. No supporting theory and no evidence.

Even if nobody noticed, what I do here is defend my original idea about mass. Resisting to change, remember?

[cladking]

... and lack of evidence. Why do we keep forgetting that, cladking?

 

Strong evidence can be presented no matter what 'perspective' anyone has.

 

 

I'm not competent to judge all of these ideas. All I can do is attempt to follow the logic and ask for explanation where I can identify an apparent inconsistency. Many crackpot ideas are simply and obviously wrong.

 

Hard evidence can be presented only in the hard sciences and only if there are observational, theoretical, or mathmatical support. The lack of such support does not necessarily deny the new idea but merely weakens it. If the new idea contradicts known science and no forthcoming explanation is available then it can be dismissed and is most probably wrong and isn't worthy of consideration even if it's right.

 

In other areas you'd be appalled to see what passes as evidence. Existing theory is founded on sand. The less support that exists for "theory" the more strongly it is defended.

 

This situation can only exist because of specialization and the lack of oversight and the inability to integrate more than a single set of specialized knowledge. We live in a world where most resources are wasted because specialists don't understand each others' positions and needs nor even the basic knowledge of their fields. Much of this is related to the inability to train generalists or define the term and the nature of modern language to hide realities. Language as a tool for communication is confused. This means each philosopher has to start from scratch and there is no progress in fields outside of science and very little progress in applied science.

 

The axioms on which human knowledge is based are incorrect or only correct from a single perspective. We can't see this and when someone presents something new it tends tobe dismissed despite its merits or lack thereof.

[Le Repteux]

In engineering, anyone who took a chance for the "pleasure in their minds" would soon be out of a job.

 

"What do you mean, you committed the company to $200 million manufacturing costs because it felt good!?"

 

We tend to rely on objective evidence. Not that different from science.

OK then, I suppose that the crackpots are the only ones who like to take chances. But this means that a big percentage of the population is crackpot, because otherwise, there would be no lottery! By the way, do you know the % of the engeneer community that byes regularly lottery tickets?