Why the Prevalence of Crackpots in Physics?

[Strange]

After having read the majority of posts provided on this thread, it appears that a person who challenges mainstream concepts such as gravitation is automatically regarded as a potential crackpot

 

Not automatically, no. For example, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Mordehai Milgrom, Jakob Bekenstein, John Moffat, and many others others have done exactly this. But they have done it in a scientific way: developing theories, testing the results, etc. So far, only a couple of those ideas have been generally accepted.

[ajb]

After having read the majority of posts provided on this thread, it appears that a person who challenges mainstream concepts such as gravitation is automatically regarded as a potential crackpot.; guilty and not to be proven to be innocent.

The problem is that you have to have a valid challenge. For gravity and quantum mechanics the 'challenges' that I typically see are based on either misunderstanding the science or philosophical objections. Clearly, neither is really enough to stir much interest from the scientific community.

 

I now realize why I would have been regarded as a crackpot 30 or more years ago, when I supplied my work to mainstream science, that provided a concept of gravity and gravitation that disallowed the existence of constantly reoccurring gravitational induced waves.

Well, see above. I don't know your work so I can't really make any useful comments, but if your manuscript was not up to the scientific standard expected it probabily did not pass the first editorial stage.

[swansont]

After having read the majority of posts provided on this thread, it appears that a person who challenges mainstream concepts such as gravitation is automatically regarded as a potential crackpot.; guilty and not to be proven to be innocent.

 

I now realize why I would have been regarded as a crackpot 30 or more years ago, when I supplied my work to mainstream science, that provided a concept of gravity and gravitation that disallowed the existence of constantly reoccurring gravitational induced waves.

 

You might be familiar with the two more famous names in Strange's list: Newton and Einstein. You might notice how they formulated a mathematical model of behavior which allowed for testing of their idea. If you can't test the idea, you have no way to show if it's right or wrong.

 

And that's a common theme. Math is so necessary to physics and crackpottery is often allergic to it. Maybe there are just as many in other fields, but they hide more easily if math isn't required.

[ajb]

And that's a common theme. Math is so necessary to physics and crackpottery is often allergic to it. Maybe there are just as many in other fields, but they hide more easily if math isn't required.

This is absolutely true. However, even in mathematics is not so much needed in postulating the conjecture eg. 'do plants grow better listening to music?', the mathematics comes in when one has to analyse the experimental data. This analysis seems generally misunderstood, especially for the ESP and paranormal supporters.

 

For example I remember one experiment about water dowsing. The experiment was a double blind experiment in which the dowsers had to say which buckets contained water. On the face of it, the results suggested that dowsing was real; they got slightly more right than wrong. However, this was a small sample size and this slightly getting more right was well within the expected variance based on probability. Of course the researchers knew this and said so, while the dowsers claimed they had proven dowsing is real. This was a TV stunt as such and so one could not read too much into it either way, but it did highlight the lack of understanding on experimental analysis on the part of the dowsers.

[swansont]

This is absolutely true. However, even in mathematics is not so much needed in postulating the conjecture eg. 'do plants grow better listening to music?', the mathematics comes in when one has to analyse the experimental data. This analysis seems generally misunderstood, especially for the ESP and paranormal supporters.

 

The crackpottery is not in posing the question, though, it's in insisting something is right. Asserting that plants grow better with music based on no (or, as with your example, statistically dubious) evidence might qualify. Though in this case, the assertion is straightforward and easily testable. There's more opportunity for crackpottery in the mechanism — saying that certain types of music cleanses the aura of the plant cells, or something.

[ajb]

The crackpottery is not in posing the question, though, it's in insisting something is right.

Absolutely, the question itself may not be crackpottery, it is what you do with it that counts.

[I-try]

ajb.

You truthfully state on post 127: I don't know your work so I can't really make any useful comments.

Answer

In that regard, nobody else on this forum has even an idea of my work. Almost from the beginning of the thread The way I-try views energy was split from the essence of energy, I have been defending against misinformed accusations intermingled with abuse to the point of realisation that my quest on this forum was doomed. Every defence made was ignored and it rapidly became obvious that nobody was prepared to understand by reading my posts other than that pertaining to their own demands.

With regards to how my work was examined on this forum, there is a need for a person with the power of a moderator to be assigned to the task of ensuring fairness when the ops are attempting to defend their work. There appears to be an established method of attack by ignoring salient points made by the defence, and either use abuse, sarcasm, or providing statements like it does not agree with QM or GR without bothering to attempt to explain why. In my case, it was not that I was not able to respond to statements implying my work did not comply with well established facts, it was a matter of being sick of having to reply to people who, on being completely ignorant of my work, were dedicated only to ridiculing it. When the referred to thread was locked, the main benefit was in relieving me from having to defend against disinterested people demanding that I explain to them something that had already been posted several times previous.

 

I see you are classified as physic expert. Therefore, in the interest of clarification, I would be much obliged if you would go to Speculations and click on page 7 and then post number 137 of the locked thread The way I-try views energy. My work requires that the Gravitational mass is exactly equal to the Inertial mass irrespective of where it is measured in the universe. However, the work also requires that statement only applies to the actions of gravitation. The equivalence disappears when an experiment is performed with regards to inertia in proportion as supplied in post 137. If you are interested, I am willing to provide all reasons to your satisfaction, as to why that is so. That explanation of gravitation should help to provide a reason to properly examine my work; there is also an opportunity for a paper on the subject. There is a lot of unknown physics to be gained from an examination of the referred to statement regarding the lack of equivalence when dealing experimentally with inertia.

[ajb]

I see you are classified as physic expert. Therefore, in the interest of clarification, I would be much obliged if you would go to Speculations and click on page 7 and then post number 137 of the locked thread The way I-try views energy.

We should not hijack this thread to discuss ideas presented in another thread. Thus us especially so when the thread is locked. Also I did not take part in that thread and so it would be unfair of me to comment based on on entry of that thread. Moreover, this is somewhat off topic.

 

That explanation of gravitation should help to provide a reason to properly examine my work; there is also an opportunity for a paper on the subject.

Then you should write the paper and submit it. That is what scientists do.

 

Generally one should not go posting new theories all over the internet. The usual thing would be to have a preprint, a conference proceeding, notes from a seminar talk, a paper or something like that. You could and maybe should advertise these via a blog or something, but the main context on the idea should be written up carefully to the standard that is required.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

I-try

 

Do not hijack other threads to discuss your locked threads. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

[Danijel Gorupec]

Hi. I am responding directly to the OP (but only because I noticed some annoying elitism in this thread, otherwise I would not interfere)

 

For the difference, I don't think there are many people in this world that published a crackpot physics theory. Possibly not even as many as there are murderers around… The number might be small to the point that psychiatry would find it expected (considering wide media coverage a crackpot publisher can so often enjoy).

 

The media coverage is huge probably because general population is easy to accept those crackpot ideas. And this, IMO, is the central question here: why is the general population so receptive to crackpot ideas and whose fault is this?

 

One part of the answer, I am sure, is because scientific community actually taught general population to believe in unbelievable newspaper headlines. Scientists are, like everybody else, in constant need for glory and money. It is so appealing to simply use a bombastic headline, and it is so hard to really explain your work, 95% of it being just a ‘dull’ math. Therefore scientists make ‘God’s particles’ and put ‘Sun in the box’… The crackpot headlines are just a boomerang of such practice - the other blade of the same axe.

 

Scientific elitism might be the second part of the answer. Scientific community suffers from elitism, I am almost sure of it. Not that every scientist is an elitist, possibly not even majority, but the majority is not fighting hard enough against elitism. Not fighting it is shortsighted and dangerous.

 

Ordinary person: Why is sky blue?

Scientist: How can you expect to understand my answer!? You know nothing about QM.

Ordinary person (thinking): What an asshole.

 

Scientists MUST find a way to explain their work to general population, no mater how hard this might be – this must be done even if general population consist exclusively of deliberate ignorants. Even if a person is a deliberate ignorant, it doesn’t mean he/she stopped to believe in a common sense. Every (nonreligious) person believes that there is a common sense and will search for it – if scientist cannot provide it, crackpotters might do! In this sense, quantum mechanic and special relativity are failures. What is the purpose of science if not teaching people? In the above dialog, the sentence “You know nothing about QM” reads as: you are not part of our elite, this knowledge is not for you.

 

Occasionally I think that science is too advanced. It has no direct connections to ordinary life of ordinary people any more. Bombastic headlines are the only way to make people interested… It is then when I think that science should temporary stop discovering new thing and, instead, should start spending time teaching. At least until the ordinary world catches up.

 

Now, you noticed how I didn’t put any blame on ordinary people. I don’t call them lazy or stupid. In this story, scientists sell their knowledge to people – and customer is always right. I mean it literally.

[ajb]

For the difference, I don't think there are many people in this world that published a crackpot physics theory. Possibly not even as many as there are murderers around… The number might be small to the point that psychiatry would find it expected (considering wide media coverage a crackpot publisher can so often enjoy).

There 'journals' that specialise in crackpot science, so people do 'publish'. Or of course they get self-published.

 

The media coverage is huge probably because general population is easy to accept those crackpot ideas. And this, IMO, is the central question here: why is the general population so receptive to crackpot ideas and whose fault is this?

We have to be careful with what scientists are actually saying and how it gets reported. The difference can be huge.

 

It is so appealing to simply use a bombastic headline, and it is so hard to really explain your work, 95% of it being just a ‘dull’ math. Therefore scientists make ‘God’s particles’ and put ‘Sun in the box’… The crackpot headlines are just a boomerang of such practice - the other blade of the same axe.

Again this is an issue of how science is reported to the general public. We have had some great examples of misinformation. One that I recall, was the report that scientists had split the electron. This was not true, the electron is fundamental and what they had really done was demonstrate some very strange and fascinating collective behaviour. No electrons were harmed in that experiment!

 

Scientific elitism might be the second part of the answer. ...

 

Scientists MUST find a way to explain their work to general population, no mater how hard this might be – this must be done even if general population consist exclusively of deliberate ignorants.

In principle I agree. In practise this may not be so easy.

 

 

 

In this story, scientists sell their knowledge to people – and customer is always right. I mean it literally.

We have to disagree on this. The problem is that the customer is not in a position to judge the scientific worth of some work.

[Danijel Gorupec]

Yes ajb, I mostly agree with your remarks. What a scientist said might be very different from what gets published. Still... what do you do to prevent this? Should I do something about it? No... you should (I am not talking that personaly here, of course).

 

We have to disagree on this. The problem is that the customer is not in a position to judge the scientific worth of some work.

As you predicted, we certainly disagree on this. It is 'your' problem, not customer problem. You should teach the customer why your product is of high quality and why crackpot product is not. At the moment the customer only see two entertaining, but mostly useles products. You must show that your product is useful!

[ajb]

Yes ajb, I mostly agree with your remarks. What a scientist said might be very different from what gets published. Still... what do you do to prevent this? Should I do something about it? No... you should (I am not talking that personaly here, of course).

The science reporters should not sensationalise things. Most of the things that get reported are in their own right amazing and don't need any 'sexing up'. Talking care with language is important. For example the 'God particle' is the worse pet name that could have been given to the Higgs' boson. I even saw a program about religion and science very intentionally use the term 'God particle', it made me cringe.

 

 

As you predicted, we certainly disagree on this. It is 'your' problem, not customer problem. You should teach the customer why your product is of high quality and why crackpot product is not. At the moment the customer only see two entertaining, but mostly useles products. You must show that your product is useful!

You can teach the general public the idea of the scientific method, why evidence is vital and that one must question things, especially when the evidence is lacking. This is important and needed in today's world; pseudo-scientific claims and products based on these claims are a real problem.

 

The applications of science is another issue. Most fundamental science does not get done with applications in mind. However there may well be spin-off technologies later. The insistence that science be immediately applicable and make money is not the way to further basic understanding of the Universe.

Edited November 13, 2014 by ajb

[swansont]

Hi. I am responding directly to the OP (but only because I noticed some annoying elitism in this thread, otherwise I would not interfere)

 

What elitism? Requiring that theories actually describe nature? If your complaint is that science is not democratic, then you are right. It's not. Not all ideas are equal nor do they all merit equal consideration. But that discrimination is not arbitrary.

 

 

The media coverage is huge probably because general population is easy to accept those crackpot ideas. And this, IMO, is the central question here: why is the general population so receptive to crackpot ideas and whose fault is this?

Scientific illiteracy? Education systems and societal norms that tolerate it?

 

One part of the answer, I am sure, is because scientific community actually taught general population to believe in unbelievable newspaper headlines.

Evidence that the scientific community does this?

 

Scientists are, like everybody else, in constant need for glory and money.

Bollocks. Asserted with no evidence.

 

It is so appealing to simply use a bombastic headline, and it is so hard to really explain your work, 95% of it being just a ‘dull’ math. Therefore scientists make ‘God’s particles’ and put ‘Sun in the box’… The crackpot headlines are just a boomerang of such practice - the other blade of the same axe.

That would be a good argument if the science community was responsible for the sensationalism, but the example you give was purely the media. The scientist involved wanted to call it the goddamn particle, but was overruled by the publisher (i.e. a member of the media, not the science community. Further, scientists don't choose headlines for articles written by journalists.

 

Do you have evidence that scientists are the bulk of the problem here? There's no argument that they play the game to some extent, but your argument is that they are making the rules.

 

Scientific elitism might be the second part of the answer. Scientific community suffers from elitism, I am almost sure of it. Not that every scientist is an elitist, possibly not even majority, but the majority is not fighting hard enough against elitism. Not fighting it is shortsighted and dangerous.

Second mention of elitism without discussion of what you actually mean by it.

 

Ordinary person: Why is sky blue?

Scientist: How can you expect to understand my answer!? You know nothing about QM.

Ordinary person (thinking): What an asshole.

Most physicists I know would answer "Rayleigh scattering" without hesitation. And explain that light scatters with the 4th power of the frequency, so blue light scatters more strongly than red, which explains both blue skies in the day and red sunrises and sunsets. The times I have seen the attitude resembling what you demonstrate here is when the "ordinary person" insists that the further details of the answer be easily understandable to them.

 

Do you have anything other than straw-man arguments?

 

Scientists MUST find a way to explain their work to general population, no mater how hard this might be – this must be done even if general population consist exclusively of deliberate ignorants. Even if a person is a deliberate ignorant, it doesn’t mean he/she stopped to believe in a common sense. Every (nonreligious) person believes that there is a common sense and will search for it – if scientist cannot provide it, crackpotters might do! In this sense, quantum mechanic and special relativity are failures. What is the purpose of science if not teaching people? In the above dialog, the sentence “You know nothing about QM” reads as: you are not part of our elite, this knowledge is not for you.

Scientists can't help people not willing to help themselves, and it's not reasonable to demand that scientists be experts in their field and become experts in communication and outreach.

 

 

Occasionally I think that science is too advanced. It has no direct connections to ordinary life of ordinary people any more. Bombastic headlines are the only way to make people interested… It is then when I think that science should temporary stop discovering new thing and, instead, should start spending time teaching. At least until the ordinary world catches up.

Why should you be able to dictate what other people do? If you think there's a gap, then why don't you become a science communicator, rather than try and enforce some communist attitude of forcing others to do it.

 

I also think you are not accounting for the fact that technological advances rely on science that the general public doesn't understand. If we had done this a few decades, then we would not have GPS, cellphones, or high-speed internet, to name a few things. Most people don't understand the science behind them, but they like the result.

 

Now, you noticed how I didn’t put any blame on ordinary people. I don’t call them lazy or stupid. In this story, scientists sell their knowledge to people – and customer is always right. I mean it literally.

No, you blamed and insulted scientists for thing that are not their fault. The customer is not always right — that's an adage for retail. Science finds things that are true regardless of what the average person feels about it.

[Danijel Gorupec]

The science reporters should not sensationalise things..

 

 

However there may well be spin-off technologies later. The insistence that science be immediately applicable and make money is not the way to further basic understanding of the Universe.

 

For the first part, I agree - reporters do a bad job (worse and worse, as time goes by, IMO). But then, the question: who should give us an answer how to stop this newspaper crazynes? Is it science maybe? The reason I joined this thread is because I read here many coimplaints: people are ignorants, reporters are greedy... But why the world does not work better? What is we should do?... What I am saying, it is scientist exactly who should complain least. You should not be satisfied by just noting that reporters do a bad job. I expect more from you.

 

Also agree with the second part. But it is not me (nor you) who is to answer if science is useful - it is the general population (they are paying for the show). Why do we need the further basic understanding of the Universe right now... is the question you will be answering to general population again and again until the end of your active days. All I am saying is that at the moment the answer scientists give to that question is not clear enough and therefore crackpots emerge more often than they should. Scientists should improve their answer.

 

 

@swansont.... I will try to comment later on your remarks. Now, after I read them, I have to cool down for few minuts because I don't want to start a flame.

[ajb]

What I am saying, it is scientist exactly who should complain least. You should not be satisfied by just noting that reporters do a bad job. I expect more from you.

Swansont and I have both commented on this via our respective blogs. Maybe this is not enough to change the situation, but we both have lots of other things to do. More generally than this a better level of general science education would help; not just the details of science but a little philosophy of what science is could make a big difference.

 

Also agree with the second part. But it is not me (nor you) who is to answer if science is useful - it is the general population (they are paying for the show). Why do we need the further basic understanding of the Universe right now... is the question you will be answering to general population again and again until the end of your active days.

This is a problem, science funding is going more and more towards applied science. Governments want a quick turnover and don't always understand the cultural aspects of developing science (why do governments funds sport or the arts?) nor the philosophy that applications are secondary, but will emerge.

[Strange]

One part of the answer, I am sure, is because scientific community actually taught general population to believe in unbelievable newspaper headlines. Scientists are, like everybody else, in constant need for glory and money. It is so appealing to simply use a bombastic headline, and it is so hard to really explain your work, 95% of it being just a ‘dull’ math. Therefore scientists make ‘God’s particles’ and put ‘Sun in the box’… The crackpot headlines are just a boomerang of such practice - the other blade of the same axe.

This is more about newspapers wanting to make money, rather than scientists. I don't know how much of science funding is determined by the size of Daily Mail or New Scientist headlines.

 

Most of these headlines and exaggerated/innaccurate sories are due to the journalists. The New Scientist, for example, is very fond of headlines like Darwin Disproved or Einstein Was Wrong. Not surprisingly, the stories are never consistent with these. And the "God Particle" was named by the publisher, not the scientist (admittedly, he should have refused to allow it but ...)

 

Ordinary person: Why is sky blue?

Scientist: How can you expect to understand my answer!? You know nothing about QM.

Ordinary person (thinking): What an asshole.

 

I have never seen such a dialogue. I have seen things along the line of:

Ordinary person: Why is sky blue?

Scientist: Because blue light is scattered more than red light

OP: Why is that?

S: Because shorter wavelengths are scattered more than longer ones.

OP: Why is that?

S: Well, it starts getting complicated. You need to understand about Raleigh scattering and molecular polarizabiltiy and ...

OP: Why does it have to be so complicated! Can't you explain it more simply?

S: It's because blue light is scattered more than red light

OP: Elitist! Why should I believe that if you can't even explain it!

 

Scientists MUST find a way to explain their work to general population, no mater how hard this might be

 

But there is a limit to how much can be explained or understood, without the necessary background.

 

Some scientists and science writers do a great job of getting complicated across in an understandable way. But this can backfire and result in some of the dubious threads we see on forums like this. For example, will take the analogies and simplifications used to explain these simple ideas, and stretch them beyond their limits. They don't understand all the background. They often don't even know that there is any background in terms of the theory, mountains of evidence, and years (decades, centuries) of work that has gone into developing the theory. They often seem to think that scientists just make up a good-sounding story and insist it is right (that would be elitism!) so why shouldn't they make up a plausible sounding story as well. They then get upset when their story is rejected, even though they can't see any difference at a superficial level.

 

In this sense, quantum mechanic and special relativity are failures.

 

I'm not sure I agree. People love to hear the amazing and counter-intuitive results from these theories. And I think they are generally accepted. There are a few people who will reject them because they are counter-intuitive (e.g. "it must be wrong because it isn't logical") and a smaller number of those will try and come up with their own ideas.

 

It is then when I think that science should temporary stop discovering new thing and, instead, should start spending time teaching. At least until the ordinary world catches up.

 

But the ordinary world is never going to (fully) catch up. You can't expect "ordinary" people to spend the time learning differential geometry so they can fully appreciate GR. And there is no reason they should. And no reason scientists should expect them to.

 

But if people want to challenge GR, then they do have to learn the mathematics behind it. Challenging it on the basis of "common sense" is a sort of anti-elitism, which is even more dangerous. Would you let someone do open heart surgery just because they once read a children's book about medicine? Or is it elitism to say they must master the necessary skills?

[swansont]

Also agree with the second part. But it is not me (nor you) who is to answer if science is useful - it is the general population (they are paying for the show). Why do we need the further basic understanding of the Universe right now... is the question you will be answering to general population again and again until the end of your active days. All I am saying is that at the moment the answer scientists give to that question is not clear enough and therefore crackpots emerge more often than they should. Scientists should improve their answer.

 

The general population that are "paying for the show" keep electing people in the US that are hostile to a lot of science. Holding them blameless in all of this seems disingenuous. They need to understand that basic research is the raw material of technological advance. But the problem here is not necessarily an information gap. It's been shown that in many cases it is fighting against ideology, and when that happens ideology often wins. It's not a matter of scientists failing to explain things. But that really has little to do with crackpottery. Crackpots have been around far longer than the current political climate has been in place.

 

The thing is that most crackpots have no excuse. The correct information is available. It is the "I am right, dammit!" insistence that is the problem. It's not a matter of science rejecting people who had ideas that disagreed with the mainstream. Folks going into science probably entertained such ideas. The difference is that people who do science learned to admit it when they were wrong, and see why the accepted science is accepted — it works. Crackpottery is rejected because it doesn't work, or can't be reasonably shown that it does work. Crackpots give the almost uniform appearance of not wanting to go through the steps to learn the science. It took me ten years of school after high school (where I had already taken two physics courses) to get my PhD. It is simply not reasonable to boil down the problem to "improve your answer" when trying to explain something, in detail, to a person that has zero years of study in the subject and who is unwilling to entertain the idea that they are wrong.

For the first part, I agree - reporters do a bad job (worse and worse, as time goes by, IMO). But then, the question: who should give us an answer how to stop this newspaper crazynes? Is it science maybe? The reason I joined this thread is because I read here many coimplaints: people are ignorants, reporters are greedy... But why the world does not work better? What is we should do?... What I am saying, it is scientist exactly who should complain least. You should not be satisfied by just noting that reporters do a bad job. I expect more from you.

 

Reporters don't answer to scientists, they answer to their bosses.

[Danijel Gorupec]

...

You said this nicely. Btw, I am also positively surprised that your answers look honest (worried and without pretending that you have all the answers) despite the fact that I criticized your occupation - gave you +1....

 

For rhetoric questions you ask last, my personal opinion is a bit scary - it is sport and art that we enjoy, not the knowledge (we only need knowledge). Acquiring knowledge is real work and for the whole history, we only strive to do less work and more entertainment. However, this is only my personal opinion and I have no desire to discuss it here (it is off topic, anyway).

 

 

Now I have to answer to other posts... there are more than I expected...

Hi Strange, here are my comments. As you read my answers please note that I am never concerned with crackpotters, but with the fact that crackpot theories are so easily accepted in general public. Crackpotters for sure exist, doing no good, but I would say that their numbers are normal and expected.

 

This is more about newspapers wanting to make money, rather than scientists. I don't know how much of science funding is determined by the size of Daily Mail or New Scientist headlines.

 

Most of these headlines and exaggerated/innaccurate sories are due to the journalists. The New Scientist, for example, is very fond of headlines like Darwin Disproved or Einstein Was Wrong. Not surprisingly, the stories are never consistent with these. And the "God Particle" was named by the publisher, not the scientist (admittedly, he should have refused to allow it but ...)

I do agree with everything you said. However I had two additional objections:

a) Could it be that science community is not doing enough to prevent sensationalistic headlines? The 'God particle' example is exactly what I have in mind - it was nice to be on headlines at the time (so, as you said, nobody protested really loudly), but it backfired soon. This is now remembered and science community has this big sign on its forehead "we sell ourselves cheaply".

b) If the world is all skewed, and sensationalistic headlines are sold too easily to ordinary people, who is the one that is going to give us answers how to improve this situation? I believe it is science that should give us such answers - therefore scientists should be last to complain (although, it is normal for all people to complain, I admit.)

 

I have never seen such a dialogue. I have seen things along the line of:

Ordinary person: Why is sky blue?

Scientist: Because blue light is scattered more than red light

OP: Why is that?

S: Because shorter wavelengths are scattered more than longer ones.

OP: Why is that?

S: Well, it starts getting complicated. You need to understand about Raleigh scattering and molecular polarizabiltiy and ...

OP: Why does it have to be so complicated! Can't you explain it more simply?

S: It's because blue light is scattered more than red light

OP: Elitist! Why should I believe that if you can't even explain it!

 

But my dialog was not intended to be real - I presented the dialog how it is heard from the Ordinary Person side! What I am saying is that a scientist will already look like an elitist only because he/she cannot provide a simple explanation. Therefore, he/she must provide additional effort to adjust his/hers attitude to at least decrease the undesired elitist effect.

 

Unfortunately, this does not seem to happen. Maybe many scientist just give up. But what concerns me is that the number of scientist that are really considering themselves elite might be increasing and that other scientist are not doing enough to prevent this. Sure, I might be wrong - it might be that the gap between ordinary person knowledge and the scientist knowledge is increasing and therefore the increased scientific elitism is just an appearance - but even if so, it is not the ordinary person that needs to do something about it. Science must find solution to that problem, who else? That is, a complaining scientist does look like a hypocrite in some way.

 

But there is a limit to how much can be explained or understood, without the necessary background.

 

Some scientists and science writers do a great job of getting complicated across in an understandable way. But this can backfire and result in some of the dubious threads we see on forums like this. For example, will take the analogies and simplifications used to explain these simple ideas, and stretch them beyond their limits. They don't understand all the background. They often don't even know that there is any background in terms of the theory, mountains of evidence, and years (decades, centuries) of work that has gone into developing the theory. They often seem to think that scientists just make up a good-sounding story and insist it is right (that would be elitism!) so why shouldn't they make up a plausible sounding story as well. They then get upset when their story is rejected, even though they can't see any difference at a superficial level.

Again I agree completely. Unfortunately, it might mean that you (science) are in no-win situation... I am afraid that you have no choice, in long term, other than to find a way to explain to general population why is your work the truth (while crackpot is not). If you are not capable to find such explanation, then you should not complain about crackpot prevalence.

 

Moreover, if you are not capable to explain why your knowledge is the truth then what is the purpose of your knowledge? Elitism? That is why I said that maybe the only solution is to wait until the rest of the world can catch up - then it will be clear whose truth is the real truth and science will again look real. You simply cannot explain your truth to important people because these people are not ready yet. (By important people I mean ordinary people who pay for the show, not crackpotters).

 

I'm not sure I agree. People love to hear the amazing and counter-intuitive results from these theories. And I think they are generally accepted. There are a few people who will reject them because they are counter-intuitive (e.g. "it must be wrong because it isn't logical") and a smaller number of those will try and come up with their own ideas.

 

I am afraid that, to general public, these theories are only accepted as a good entertainment. But you are probably right in a part - some amazing ear-catching results should be provided for marketing efforts.

 

But the ordinary world is never going to (fully) catch up. You can't expect "ordinary" people to spend the time learning differential geometry so they can fully appreciate GR. And there is no reason they should. And no reason scientists should expect them to.

Ordinary people do not understand electromagnetism, but they believe it is real because they are running electric motors every day. When I say 'catch up' I don't expect that they will really understand the theory. Instead, I think of the world in which QM and GR will be regularly demonstrated in everyday ordinary machines. This is why I say that science is probably too advanced to expect overwhelming acceptance.

 

In fact, once you start handling electromagnetic machines every day, you start acquiring some intuitive knowledge about electromagnetism. The stuff begins to feel realistic. You become a 'believer'. This might also happen when we see more QM and GR in ordinary life.

 

But if people want to challenge GR, then they do have to learn the mathematics behind it. Challenging it on the basis of "common sense" is a sort of anti-elitism, which is even more dangerous. Would you let someone do open heart surgery just because they once read a children's book about medicine? Or is it elitism to say they must master the necessary skills?

Yes. I never questioned that. An ordinary person will never dare to challenge GR (but between two competing theories will dare to accept the one that makes more common sense to him). Crackpotters are the other story - you cannot argue with them.

The general population that are "paying for the show" keep electing people in the US that are hostile to a lot of science. Holding them blameless in all of this seems disingenuous. They need to understand that basic research is the raw material of technological advance. But the problem here is not necessarily an information gap. It's been shown that in many cases it is fighting against ideology, and when that happens ideology often wins. It's not a matter of scientists failing to explain things. But that really has little to do with crackpottery. Crackpots have been around far longer than the current political climate has been in place.

I don't understand what then is your plan? I simply see no alternative than to keep trying and trying, hoping that some approach will finally work and your truth will prevail. I hope that you find this particular thread only as a place to 'cry a little' in order to fill up batteries so that you can start trying again.

 

You see, giving truth to people is The Job of the science. You cannot just capitulate against crackpotters.

 

If you think there are particular people that are hostile to science (possibly because of some personal interests) then my advice is to attack them. I will help... But majority of people are deliberate ignorants - you must fight for them, not against them. They expect you to do this fighting.

 

The thing is that most crackpots have no excuse. The correct information is available. It is the "I am right, dammit!" insistence that is the problem. It's not a matter of science rejecting people who had ideas that disagreed with the mainstream. Folks going into science probably entertained such ideas. The difference is that people who do science learned to admit it when they were wrong, and see why the accepted science is accepted — it works. Crackpottery is rejected because it doesn't work, or can't be reasonably shown that it does work. Crackpots give the almost uniform appearance of not wanting to go through the steps to learn the science. It took me ten years of school after high school (where I had already taken two physics courses) to get my PhD. It is simply not reasonable to boil down the problem to "improve your answer" when trying to explain something, in detail, to a person that has zero years of study in the subject and who is unwilling to entertain the idea that they are wrong.

 

For crackpots I agree completely. Fight them...

For the "improve your answer" problem, I have no solution. I can only stress again the same question: Whose problem is that? If you think that this it is the problem of science, then you should keep trying. If you think that this is the problem of general population then you move into elitism... Now you got me thinking that maybe elitism is not a bad solution and maybe I was to quick to criticize it.

 

...

 

I am still owing you my comments for your first response, I did not forget nor shy away.

[MonDie]

If I can be considered a crackpot to some degree, then this is expert testimony.

 

Crackpotia can arise from an obsessive, OCD-like drive to solve some problem and to feel secure about one's solution. Perhaps they're attracted by pervasive theories because that's where the problems in need of solutions are.

Edited November 13, 2014 by MonDie

[Danijel Gorupec]

Here, swansont, I am trying to make additional explanations regarding your first response...

What elitism? Requiring that theories actually describe nature? If your complaint is that science is not democratic, then you are right. It's not. Not all ideas are equal nor do they all merit equal consideration. But that discrimination is not arbitrary.

The elitism is in attitude, not in facts. One can be fully correct, and still be an elitist... However I decided not to give those attitude examples here that made me feel that way (if I make a misjudgment I would insult those posters and would start a flame) except for one made by you at the end of this post... So, in a way, you won this one.

Still, note that I was only referring to my motivation - I was not actually claiming elitism in this thread (this would need a proof), but was claiming that I felt it. Elitism is difficult to prove, and I was not trying to prove it.

Evidence that the scientific community does this?

 

Hard one. Surprisingly, here you are expected to note that the phrase "I am sure" actually means the opposite - that I actually don't have strong evidence, but only strong indications. I think that such language usage is not an error, but might not be appropriate - sorry.

My indications for the claim are countless newspaper headlines where "scientists say that <anything cool>". You will argue that those headlines are made by journalists, but I will argue that I see no denials to such headlines coming from scientific community (I only remember several examples, including cold fusion). Why the lack of denials? You might argue that I am searching for denials on a wrong place, but I am not - I am searching for them exactly where the general population is searching for them. Placing a denial on a obscure place is doing no job... Now you might argue that you are powerless and that the lack of denials is not because you secretly like to have the headlines. I will have to accept this (but will remain undecided who else should I blame for missing denials).

Therefore, you won again.

Bollocks. Asserted with no evidence.

Now I have to admit that I produced a horrible sentence. Obviously that sentence can be understood as if I am claiming that all scientist want is glory and money. What I am actually claiming is that scientists, as anybody else, are not immune to glory and money (and this can, therefore, be the motivation for lack of denials, as explained above). I am still standing with this claim, but because I made such a stupid sentence, I think you won again.

I don't know the meaning of the English word "bollocks". I decided not to look in the dictionary because I am afraid it might be an insult.

That would be a good argument if the science community was responsible for the sensationalism, but the example you give was purely the media. The scientist involved wanted to call it the goddamn particle, but was overruled by the publisher (i.e. a member of the media, not the science community. Further, scientists don't choose headlines for articles written by journalists.

Do you have evidence that scientists are the bulk of the problem here? There's no argument that they play the game to some extent, but your argument is that they are making the rules.

As explained, my blame on scientist community is because of passivity (silent approval or powerless maybe). Further, I am not nearly thinking that scientists are the bulk of the problem. Because I now realize that I used too strong words (and only for the effect - to my shame), I think that you won again.

Still, I am not nearly convinced that scientist community is innocent for the active part too.

Second mention of elitism without discussion of what you actually mean by it.

Most physicists I know would answer "Rayleigh scattering" without hesitation. And explain that light scatters with the 4th power of the frequency, so blue light scatters more strongly than red, which explains both blue skies in the day and red sunrises and sunsets. The times I have seen the attitude resembling what you demonstrate here is when the "ordinary person" insists that the further details of the answer be easily understandable to them.

Do you have anything other than straw-man arguments?

To me, elitism is an attitude, and the dialog I provide is an example how a scientist is seen from the point of view of an ordinary person. In this dialog it is not important what the scientists answers, but how the ordinary person accepts this answer. It is expected that the ordinary person will insist on further details and you should not blame him for this. It is also expected that he will expect a common-sense answer, can you blame him? What that person expects form a scientist is to provide answers... I am afraid that, if the scientist is honest, he will find himself in a no-win situation very soon.

However, not that I am only expressing my concerns that scientists look as elitist, I am also expressing my strong concerns that increasing number of scientists are really becoming elitists - exactly because of this attitude you also are partially providing: "It is not our problem if all those people are such ignorants". Such claims do not help to the image of science... However, in the meantime I discovered that elitism might not be all that bad so, maybe you are right with this attitude.

You win, because it is a tradition.

Scientists can't help people not willing to help themselves, and it's not reasonable to demand that scientists be experts in their field and become experts in communication and outreach.

I agree for the second part. Particular scientists cannot be experts in communication. However, science as a whole is still responsible for not being able to find the way to reach for majority.

I cannot agree for the first part. Those people do not need to help themselves. They are good as they are - even if shortsighted. You have the problem because they do no understand you (while you need them badly). Do you understand what I am saying?

Why should you be able to dictate what other people do? If you think there's a gap, then why don't you become a science communicator, rather than try and enforce some communist attitude of forcing others to do it.

I also think you are not accounting for the fact that technological advances rely on science that the general public doesn't understand. If we had done this a few decades, then we would not have GPS, cellphones, or high-speed internet, to name a few things. Most people don't understand the science behind them, but they like the result.

Complete misunderstanding. Not even sure how to answer. This is the only part of my post where I didn't criticize science, but was expressing my concerns about its future.

No, you blamed and insulted scientists for thing that are not their fault. The customer is not always right — that's an adage for retail. Science finds things that are true regardless of what the average person feels about it.

This last thing is where we disagree sharply, and is where I see elitism. All your facts (almost) completely stand, but your attitude is wrong, IMO... What the average person feels must be the business of the science, at least to some specialized part of science.

[Strange]

I don't disagree with all you say (although it is nearly all irrelevant to the subject of the thread). But I do have a problem with:

 

To me, elitism is an attitude, and the dialog I provide is an example how a scientist is seen from the point of view of an ordinary person. In this dialog it is not important what the scientists answers, but how the ordinary person accepts this answer.

 

You are saying part of the problem is elitism, which would put the blame on the (elitist) scientists. However, you go on to say that this is a problem with the attitude of the "ordinary person". If it doesn't matter what the answer is, then it isn't elitism on the part of the scientist: she can't win.

 

Anyway, I don't know what is wrong with elitism: I want my brain surgeon to be one of the elite.

 

 

What the average person feels must be the business of the science, at least to some specialized part of science.

 

Why? Is the result of an experiment affected by popular opinion? Should it be? Should the choice of experimental method be determined by popular opinion?

 

And why just scientists? Should your doctors treatment be determined by popular opinion? Or by what is most likely to cure you?

Edited November 14, 2014 by Strange

[ajb]

For rhetoric questions you ask last, my personal opinion is a bit scary - it is sport and art that we enjoy, not the knowledge (we only need knowledge). Acquiring knowledge is real work and for the whole history, we only strive to do less work and more entertainment. However, this is only my personal opinion and I have no desire to discuss it here (it is off topic, anyway).

Some of us do enjoy discovering knowledge and making contributions of mankind's understanding. Not that it is always fun!

 

Ordinary people do not understand electromagnetism, but they believe it is real because they are running electric motors every day. When I say 'catch up' I don't expect that they will really understand the theory. Instead, I think of the world in which QM and GR will be regularly demonstrated in everyday ordinary machines. This is why I say that science is probably too advanced to expect overwhelming acceptance.

 

In fact, once you start handling electromagnetic machines every day, you start acquiring some intuitive knowledge about electromagnetism. The stuff begins to feel realistic. You become a 'believer'. This might also happen when we see more QM and GR in ordinary life.

 

 

With elitism, it will vary but most scientists will be happy to engage with you if you were to ask a few questions. The problem is when these questions get turned into telling scientists how it is or how it should be. This is crackpot behaviour. Also, scientists don't have the time or the will to teach you everything about their science. You should not expect individual scientists to give you everything on a plate.

Quantum mechanics is essential in modern electronics, for example. You use devices that rely on our understanding of quantum mechanics all the time; your computer, your phone, your TV, your microwave...

 

General relativity less so, but the GPS system takes relativistic effects into account with the continual calibration. This has been discussed on this forum many times by those more knowledgeable that I on the matter.

Edited November 14, 2014 by ajb

[Danijel Gorupec]

I don't disagree with all you say (although it is nearly all irrelevant to the subject of the thread). But I do have a problem with:

 

You are saying part of the problem is elitism, which would put the blame on the (elitist) scientists. However, you go on to say that this is a problem with the attitude of the "ordinary person". If it doesn't matter what the answer is, then it isn't elitism on the part of the scientist: she can't win.

 

Anyway, I don't know what is wrong with elitism: I want my brain surgeon to be one of the elite.

 

 

Why? Is the result of an experiment affected by popular opinion? Should it be? Should the choice of experimental method be determined by popular opinion?

 

And why just scientists? Should your doctors treatment be determined by popular opinion? Or by what is most likely to cure you?

 

As you identified, I argued that the perceived elitism of scientific community might be another reason to push ordinary people toward creationism or other crackpots. I express both concerns: that this elitism might only be perceived (unreal) because scientific answers are not acceptable by an ordinary person (this is the 'no-win' situation); but also that the elitist behavior might really exist in the scientific community (because of the "why should we care if they are not capable to understand this" stance that I felt several times in this thread, although it was never said directly).

 

What I am saying is that no mater what is the source of this perceived elitism - if it is real or not; if what I felt is just an illusion or not - it is the scientific community that must address this problem and decide how to handle it. Otherwise people will just go stubborn and will turn to crackpots. You cannot expect that the general population will suddenly become enlightened - it is science that must find a way to provoke such enlightenment. Who else?... But you are right and I was wrong regarding this particular thread: as someone said, not all scientists (physicists, for example) should be experts in communication, only science as a whole. And because this thread is about physicists mostly, some of my claims are not in appropriate place.

 

From what you are saying I have an impression that you don't think that it is important for science to be accepted by general public. Yes, science is valid without this acceptance, but does it have a purpose then? I simply see no alternative for science than to constantly try reaching for the public acceptance. And, as I understand humans, you can only reach for someone acceptance if that person feels positive about you. That is why I said that what people feel is (or should be) the business of science - I was not talking about validity of scientific claims. [Even the question "why people are not more positive about science" is also a scientific question - agree? So, even from this point of view, how people feel is also the business of science.]

 

The word 'elitism', as I use it, includes some arrogant stance that is repulsive to majority. I agree that, technically, elitism does not need to be repulsive and that I used the term somewhat colloquially. But according to responses I received, I guess you all understood what I meant by 'elitism'.... If one day the scientific community becomes a completely elitist society, and if general public find this acceptable and non-repulsive, then I will have nothing against it. The only important thing is that general public keeps accepting the scientific knowledge - otherwise science has no purpose, IMO.

 

@ajb... Yes, I am aware that QM already influences the everyday life (my field is electronics). But for some reason ordinary people are not aware of this. Communication failure? I don't dare to claim who is guilty for that because I am afraid I will not have the strength for another flame

[ajb]

@ajb... Yes, I am aware that QM already influences the everyday life (my field is electronics). But for some reason ordinary people are not aware of this. Communication failure? I don't dare to claim who is guilty for that because I am afraid I will not have the strength for another flame

Not all school children study physics far enough for the applications of quantum mechanics to be common knowledge. That is not to say that we should expect everyone to know the details, but to just be aware that there are some strange rules at the atomic level and that we have used these in modern technology.