New theories are trash ?????

[Le Repteux]

You're trying so hard to paint science in a bad light.

You got to enlighten your screen if you read that out of my posts. I am referring to a theory of mine about mass here, and that theory includes all that exist for real, including the words that we use to discuss our ideas. There is nothing special for the scientists in that theory, only the same resistance to change than everybody else. You see, this is the problem that someone faces when presenting a new idea to the scientific community: it unfortunately induces the feeling that we plead against the community, which is absolutely wrong in my case. Feelings are not supposed to interfere with theories, but it seems that they do, and that it is an unconscious phenomenon.

 

You've spent 15 pages telling us how you think science should be, and we keep telling you it works better than anything humans have ever tried. The fact that you want to change it without understanding it fully should tell you something about the way you approach learning.

Here is my first post on page three:

 

Hi Cladking,

I agee with that. We are on the automatic pilot almost all the time. We expect no change until it hurts. So I expect that it is probably the same for scientists, and that it will not change, but for eternity, so I expect no harm from this idea. Is it a law of nature? And if so, why all that change around us? Why so much resistance, and so much change? Is it also a law?

 

Do you really see that I want to change science on that post? That I treat scientists differently than me or anybody else?

...making Trash the appropriate place for the thread.

Here comes the trashman... Here comes the trashman...

Edited September 29, 2014 by Le Repteux

[xyzt]

 

Do you really see that I want to change science on that post?

What we have seen, from your posts, is stuff that has nothing to do with science, so there is no way that your "theories" can "change" science.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Not new or not trash? I might agree on the majority of "new ideas" being presented not being new at all. Not sure if I agree that they are not trash, at least for the many of those sold on sfn as "new thoughts". The few interesting new thoughts I see here are usually not labelled as such, but tend to come along in more modest clothing. Reasons for self-proclaimed "new thoughts" being forum-trash usually are:

- arrogance (being certain that an idea is new because it is new to me)

- ignorance to the fact that a lot of other people spend a lot of time working on scientific ideas

- delusions of grandeur ("... but those other people are not as smart as me")

- being a social asshole (pretending humility despite actually being arrogant, ignorant and delusional)

- a qualitative understanding of probabilities (requesting for my ideas to be taken seriously because the chance of it being valuable is not mathematically zero)

- and possibly most importantly a lack of a scientific background, implying (a) not knowing the actual state of the field I talk about and (b) not having been trained to be critical towards my own ideas/results

 

Luckily, this was a general question by a new member not relating to any specific post. If someone feels offended by this: Don't worry, I did not mean you. Your new ideas posted here are different, of course

Don't look at me! Lolll.

 

Arrogance and honesty at the same time

[swansont]

If thoughts and emotions are related to chemical and biological processes, why would they not resist a change? It takes time for those process to change.

 

Good questions, unrelated to the equations of motion from mechanics.

 

How quickly? Starting at the moment he began to discuss them, how long did it take for Einstein's ideas to be adopted, for instance?

Pretty quickly, once experimentally confirmed. Students exposed to the idea for the first time adopt it pretty quickly as well.

 

I never saw anybody change his mind in the discussions that I saw on all the forums I participated to. People change their mind so slowly that this kind of change is almost impossible to observe.

OK, so you've decided to go with argument from personal incredulity or cherry-picking the data. Maybe it's just forums are a bad place to look, or it was the particular idea(s) that had something to do with the resistance to change. (If you're pushing the idea that we should all eat dirt sandwiches, then I don't think you can use that as an example of people being inherently resistant to change; the quality of the idea has something to do with it)

 

edit to add: Steve Jobs was well-known in some circles for his ability to drastically change his mind when presented with new information

http://allthingsd.com/20120529/steve-jobs-was-an-awesome-flip-flopper-says-tim-cook/

[Le Repteux]

Good questions, unrelated to the equations of motion from mechanics.

Not directly, but if mass is related to the small steps, and if these have something to do with chemical bonds, then these questions are indirectly related to mass, which is the most direct observation we can make of resisting to change.

 

Pretty quickly, once experimentally confirmed. Students exposed to the idea for the first time adopt it pretty quickly as well.

Of course, but it takes time nevertheless: with the small steps, mass depends on the mediator taking time to link atoms while they are accelerated, and in the same way, it also takes time to integrate a new information, thus to learn. The analogy is not only direct, the time delay has exactly the same effect.

 

OK, so you've decided to go with argument from personal incredulity or cherry-picking the data. Maybe it's just forums are a bad place to look, or it was the particular idea(s) that had something to do with the resistance to change. (If you're pushing the idea that we should all eat dirt sandwiches, then I don't think you can use that as an example of people being inherently resistant to change; the quality of the idea has something to do with it)

We experiment resisting to change everyday from others: why do you think that you resist so hard to the idea that it is natural?

 

edit to add: Steve Jobs was well-known in some circles for his ability to drastically change his mind when presented with new information

http://allthingsd.com/20120529/steve-jobs-was-an-awesome-flip-flopper-says-tim-cook/

 

I also heard that he was impatient and rude with his staff, and this kind of behavior is a good indicator of a strong resistance to change.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

Not directly, but if mass is related to the small steps, and if these have something to do with chemical bonds, then these questions are indirectly related to mass, which is the most direct observation we can make of resisting to change.

An unproven conjecture, which we aren't discussing here (remember?) that has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

 

 

 

Of course, but it takes time nevertheless: with the small steps, mass depends on the mediator taking time to link atoms while they are accelerated, and in the same way, it also takes time to integrate a new information, thus to learn. The analogy is not only direct, the time delay has exactly the same effect.

 

We experiment resisting to change everyday from others: why do you think that you resist so hard to the idea that it is natural?

 

 

I also heard that he was impatient and rude with his staff, and this kind of behavior is a good indicator of a strong resistance to change.

Wow. Even when presented direct evidence, you continue to deny it. Someone who worked directly with Jobs says one thing, and you still claim the opposite.

[Strange]

I also heard that he was impatient and rude with his staff, and this kind of behavior is a good indicator of a strong resistance to change.

 

Apparently not. You seem to prefer your own opinion to facts. It is about time you changed your mind.

[Le Repteux]

An unproven conjecture, which we aren't discussing here (remember?) that has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

From your point of view, new theories are trashed because of good reasoning, from mine, my theory might be trashed because of resisting to change: two different perspectives, isn't it?

 

Wow. Even when presented direct evidence, you continue to deny it. Someone who worked directly with Jobs says one thing, and you still claim the opposite.

I don't deny he could change his mind rapidly, I only say that he must have obeyed the same natural laws than everybody else. If you give somebody a push, you can feel the resistance, and if you push his mind too.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

OK, we once again find that when someone takes a stance they can't objectively defend, no amount of reason will dissuade them. Thank you to the participants, these types of threads are frustrating, but necessary to show others why the only people truly stuck in the mud are those who won't take the time to learn the best explanations we've accumulated.

Thread closed.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Phi for All
That didn't come out right....