Can science benefit from anonymity?

[evobulgarevo]

History shows that some important technological advancements and scientific discoveries were ridiculed as 'insanity' when originally proposed.

 

Today we know better. And yet, we sill ridicule.

 

So, can science benefit from anonymity?

[Strange]

History shows that some important technological advancements and scientific discoveries were ridiculed as 'insanity' when originally proposed.

 

For example?

 

Today we know better. And yet, we sill ridicule.

 

For example?

 

 

So, can science benefit from anonymity?

 

Until you have established that there is a problem, it seems unnecessary to invent solutions.

[ScienceOrFiction]

The more mankind discovers about nature, life and technology the more we benefit from it, that is what I think…

[ajb]

So, can science benefit from anonymity?

The refereeing of papers is usually done by anonymous referees. Though often you can have a reasonable idea who they are.

 

Double anonymity could be an idea, but the referees will be able to make good guesses of who the authors are based on style, the references and so on.

 

Maybe making it all open could be another idea...

[evobulgarevo]

 

For example?

 

 

For example?

 

 

Until you have established that there is a problem, it seems unnecessary to invent solutions.

 

I know we have a difference in opinion, I know my opinions upset you.. and I'm ok with that. But if you can't think of a single technological advancement which was ridiculed when it was originally proposed, then I don't know how you're ranked as a "Genius".

[ajb]

@evobulgarevo It would help if you give some modern examples of what you are talking about. That way Strange and you can really start a dialogue.

[Phi for All]

History shows that some important technological advancements and scientific discoveries were ridiculed as 'insanity' when originally proposed.

 

Today we know better. And yet, we sill ridicule.

 

So, can science benefit from anonymity?

 

If a vaccine cures a million people but kills fifty, do you throw it out, or try to improve the odds?

 

I think a few Galileo instances have been magically multiplied in the minds of many who fail a rigorous review, but since it's one of those conclusions that isn't really based on reality, people believe it more strongly the more you show evidence to the contrary.

 

I think it's easy to ridicule, maybe too easy. I think it can be effective, but it's applied inappropriately too often (very limited analogy: you don't go around slapping people, but it might work if someone was hysterical). I also think too many people misconstrue disagreement with ridicule. If I show where you're wrong, I'm doing my job as a scientist, not making fun of you.

 

That said, science should always be looking for ways to remove subjective factors, ways that we influence our hypotheses with our own biases. Anonymity could help in many situations, removing personal factors that could unfairly influence us.

 

 

 

 

Here's what I think you're really asking about. You have some ideas but don't feel they're being given a fair assessment by scientists on this site. You feel you're being dismissed, and others are over-critical.

 

But be honest. You didn't study much science in school, so you aren't really familiar with the methodology scientists use to assess an idea. It has to start with a good foundation, based on knowledge we already have and trust. If you showed up with bridge plans that didn't have enough support, you'd expect an engineer to tell you, right? So many people come here like you with an idea that seems so right to you, only to have a scientist tell you you forgot something very basic, so you're idea needs work. But what you hear is "YOU'RE WRONG", and it hurts because you've decided they're being dismissive.

 

Science flourishes when as many people as possible share their knowledge and work towards explaining our universe in the most trustworthy way. But most ideas are wrong, and trained scientists learn to focus resources on ideas that have a chance at being right. And that training forces them to be especially critical about getting the basics right.

 

 

I know we have a difference in opinion, I know my opinions upset you..

 

Hey, I thought Strange had made it quite clear that none of this was enough to make him "upset". I hope you aren't trying to flame him for a reaction.

[evobulgarevo]

The refereeing of papers is usually done by anonymous referees. Though often you can have a reasonable idea who they are.

 

Double anonymity could be an idea, but the referees will be able to make good guesses of who the authors are based on style, the references and so on.

 

Maybe making it all open could be another idea...

 

I like openness. Let everything be visible to all. Have people educated and encourage them to think for themselves. Encourage them to question, without judgement.

 

The reason why I'm wondering if science can benefit from anonymity is because scientists are human. And they too are susceptible to ego.

 

 

@evobulgarevo It would help if you give some modern examples of what you are talking about. That way Strange and you can really start a dialogue.

 

There was a time when we thought the idea of flight was ludicrous. There was a time when we thought the universe was static.

 

Would anonymity help propel ideas that contradict the commonly accepted 'truths'?

 

And there's no sense in a dialogue with that individual, at least not yet, because he's still salty.

 

 

The more mankind discovers about nature, life and technology the more we benefit from it, that is what I think…

 

Agreed. As long as discoveries are open to all, at all times, always and not kept on the down low for the personal gain of a select few.

[swansont]

 

I know we have a difference in opinion, I know my opinions upset you.. and I'm ok with that. But if you can't think of a single technological advancement which was ridiculed when it was originally proposed, then I don't know how you're ranked as a "Genius".

 

That's a rather open-ended objection. If three people ridicule an advancement, but thousands accept it, is that really a problem? I don't see how anonymity helps. The fact that some advancements faced ridicule doesn't address the fact that they were still accepted. What constitutes ridicule, anyway? Is that simple criticism, or calls for more detail? (according to some people who have posted here, that's unforgivable ridicule) How many proposals were "ridiculed" that turned out to be nonsense? Maybe it's just a reasonable part of the vetting process.

[Arete]

 

I like openness. Let everything be visible to all. Have people educated and encourage them to think for themselves. Encourage them to question, without judgement.

 

The reason why I'm wondering if science can benefit from anonymity is because scientists are human. And they too are susceptible to ego.

 

As pointed out, peer review is usually anonymous for the reviewer, and an increasing number of journals are implementing double blind reviews.

 

However, in terms of this board:

 

A) It's already anonymous. You, I and the majority of other users here are using pseudonyms, which to some extent obscure our real world identities. Ultimately no one can tell if you are a Nobel Laureate or an elementary school student - you are being judged on what you post and not who you are.

 

B) An anonymous internet forum is the wrong place to both look for and disseminate novel research - that place is the scientific literature, conferences and to some extent for really cutting edge stuff at least in my field, forms of social media like twitter and researchgate. You generally don't see and wouldn't expect to see brand new research here, and people presenting their brand new theses/hypotheses here are generally outside of and unfamiliar with the scientific community and its minimum standards for the presentation of research, and thus rarely, if ever, meet them.

 

While on occasion the more seasoned scientists on the forum may seem harsh in its critique of a presented idea, It is nothing compared to the rigor of the actual scientific community. I don't think I've ever seen a new idea posted here that wouldn't have been rejected summarily by even the most lenient legitimate scientific journal. The standards for background research, replication and controlling one's observations, statistical verification and drawing appropriate conclusions are high - much higher than many laypeople expect. I think the scientific community as a whole is pretty unapologetic for that.

 

then I don't know how you're ranked as a "Genius".

 

 

Aside from moderators and resident experts, ranks are simply an automated indicator of post number. Most fora have a similar system.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Arete

[evobulgarevo]

I also think too many people misconstrue disagreement with ridicule. If I show where you're wrong, I'm doing my job as a scientist, not making fun of you.

 

If people are given a fair platform where they can express their opinions freely, it's all fair game. Showing or proving that I'm wrong on a particular assertion is constructive as long as I'm allowed to present a counter argument.

 

Dismissing an assertion on a personal basis, hampering discussion, and censorship, on the other hand, are not constructive.

 

I'm talking in general, not necessarily anything to do with our earlier interactions.

 

That said, science should always be looking for ways to remove subjective factors, ways that we influence our hypotheses with our own biases. Anonymity could help in many situations, removing personal factors that could unfairly influence us.

 

Agreed.

 

Here's what I think you're really asking about. You have some ideas but don't feel they're being given a fair assessment by scientists on this site. You feel you're being dismissed, and others are over-critical.

 

Nothing wrong with being overly critical. Though there's a fine line when excessive non-constructive criticism can become an impediment to discussion.

 

As long as I can express my opinions and thoughts without censorship I'm good. I'm not on here looking for approval or emotional support. Though I do enjoy open discussions, or debates if you will. And these only seem to get interesting when there's difference in opinion. So, thanks.

 

And to be honest, the trigger was quite possibly the negative "reputation" points. Maybe if the terminology was different, I wouldn't have posted this. Though this has been something I've been thinking about.

 

I didn't insult anyone directly, though I was called an idiot. I don't think I've spammed the threads, and I'd say I've been posting on topic.. so the negative "reputation" points seem to be due to the difference in opinion. Is a difference in opinion a bad thing?

 

Personally, I don't have a science reputation to maintain. I'm not a scientist. Do you see my point?

 

But be honest. You didn't study much science in school, so you aren't really familiar with the methodology scientists use to assess an idea. It has to start with a good foundation, based on knowledge we already have and trust. If you showed up with bridge plans that didn't have enough support, you'd expect an engineer to tell you, right? So many people come here like you with an idea that seems so right to you, only to have a scientist tell you you forgot something very basic, so you're idea needs work. But what you hear is "YOU'RE WRONG", and it hurts because you've decided they're being dismissive.

 

It's true, I didn't study much science in school. In fact, I didn't like science very much. I only recently got interested in science, and find it quite interesting.

 

The quote above says that a good foundation is needed, which I agree with. But as I've mentioned in an earlier reply, scientists are human. My point is that we should all remain open minded.

 

For example, if observations show that the speed of light appears to change over a period of several decades, it's probably worth exploring why a constant is changing rather than fudging the numbers to match what was understood to be a constant value.

 

The quote above illustrates the presumptuousness of human nature, scientist or not. I didn't come here to prove a point. All of my posts thus far have been mostly an expression of opinion in hopes of getting to know you better. For example, I now know that there are a couple of people on here that are probably not worth the time an extensive discussion would take.

 

Science flourishes when as many people as possible share their knowledge and work towards explaining our universe in the most trustworthy way. But most ideas are wrong, and trained scientists learn to focus resources on ideas that have a chance at being right. And that training forces them to be especially critical about getting the basics right.

 

Surely you can recognize that science is evolving. Surely you can acknowledge that scientific ideas that were once accepted as truth are no longer accepted because new findings have come about. The point here is that some seem to think that science has already figured absolutely everything out and that's it. We already know everything. Good job science, there's nothing more that you can teach us. That's silly.

 

Hey, I thought Strange had made it quite clear that none of this was enough to make him "upset". I hope you aren't trying to flame him for a reaction.

 

Words can convey emotions even if the ego doesn't allow you to admit to them.

That's a rather open-ended objection. If three people ridicule an advancement, but thousands accept it, is that really a problem? I don't see how anonymity helps. The fact that some advancements faced ridicule doesn't address the fact that they were still accepted. What constitutes ridicule, anyway? Is that simple criticism, or calls for more detail? (according to some people who have posted here, that's unforgivable ridicule) How many proposals were "ridiculed" that turned out to be nonsense? Maybe it's just a reasonable part of the vetting process.

 

As the saying goes, the truth eventually comes out. Is it possible, however, to propel scientific progress from the point of ridicule to the point of acceptance for ideas that we are unable to comprehend but future generations might?

 

If a reputable scientist discovers a truth that he thinks is accurate, but he doesn't feel like it's 100%, or maybe he just can't explain it fully at a particular point in time, would that scientist put his name on a theory that could damage a reputation that took a lifetime to build?

ranks are simply an automated indicator of post number.

 

So he got the rank of "Genius" thanks to the sheer volume of posts, as opposed to the quality of their content.

[iNow]

So he got the rank of "Genius" thanks to the sheer volume of posts, as opposed to the quality of their content.

Yes, just like your post count ranks you as a "Quark" and me as a "Supernerd."

 

If quality is what you're after, consider checking the reputation system instead. While clearly not flawless, it does offer a quick estimate / meaningful proxy for the overall value of a members contributions to the site here. It also generally goes up over time, unless of course the poster is being trollish and/or unable to add value to discussions even after receiving specific feedback on how to do so. To that end, we see that Strange is currently 1013. I'm 3581. You... well, you're currently at negative 19.

 

Either way, comments about the reputation system and user ranks based on post count are off-topic and belong in the user feedback forum.

[Strange]

I know we have a difference in opinion, I know my opinions upset you.. and I'm ok with that.

 

Your opinions don't upset me at all. What an odd thing to say. It is rather like:

 

"There is a good movie on tonight"

"Oh, what is it called?"

"Well, I'm sorry if my opinions upset you."

 

But if you can't think of a single technological advancement which was ridiculed when it was originally proposed, then I don't know how you're ranked as a "Genius".

 

I'm sure there are some that were ridiculed by some people. Has this ever been a problem? I'm not sure.

 

Scientists and technologists are human. So there will always be some who oppose new ideas, some who jump on them before they have been confirmed, some who wait and see, and some who use it to inspire their own further work.

 

However, when it comes to science, this reluctance to accept new ideas is what makes it so successful. It means that (most) scientists expect convincing evidence before they will accept an idea.

 

Famously, Einstein never really accepted the consequences of quantum theory (despite getting a Nobel Prize for his work in the area). He, with Podolsky and Rosen, wrote a paper where they said that if quantum theory is right it leads to a conclusion which is obviously ridiculous. This encouraged people to look at the issue more deeply, especially Bell, and eventually perform experiments to test the idea. Quantum theory was right and Einstein was wrong. But ultimately the theory was greatly strengthened by all this extra work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

There was a time when we thought the idea of flight was ludicrous. There was a time when we thought the universe was static.

 

Would anonymity help propel ideas that contradict the commonly accepted 'truths'?

 

Manned flight was developed very publicly. I assume the various people involved wanted the publicity to raise funds, apart from any egos involved. (I'm not sure the idea was generally considered ludicrous anyway.)

 

And yes, Einstein initially frigged his equations because everyone assumed the universe was static. But once evidence of the predicted expansion was found he and nearly everyone else changed their minds. The only people who still cling to a static universe are a small group of hardcore Internet crackpots.

 

If people are given a fair platform where they can express their opinions freely, it's all fair game. Showing or proving that I'm wrong on a particular assertion is constructive as long as I'm allowed to present a counter argument.

 

You have been asked to support you claims, but have singularly failed/refused to do so.

 

Dismissing an assertion on a personal basis, hampering discussion, and censorship, on the other hand, are not constructive.

 

Agreed.

 

For example, if observations show that the speed of light appears to change over a period of several decades, it's probably worth exploring why a constant is changing rather than fudging the numbers to match what was understood to be a constant value.

 

If such a thing were found, then there would be a rush to investigate it. That is the sort of thing that new phsyics and Nobel Prizes are built on. Remember the excitement when it was thought that neutrinos had been measured going faster than light?

 

All of my posts thus far have been mostly an expression of opinion in hopes of getting to know you better.

 

But you have asserted your opinions as if they are fact.

 

The point here is that some seem to think that science has already figured absolutely everything out and that's it. We already know everything. Good job science, there's nothing more that you can teach us. That's silly.

 

That would be very silly. I can't imagine anyone saying such a thing. Have you really heard people say that?

[Phi for All]

The point here is that some seem to think that science has already figured absolutely everything out and that's it. We already know everything. Good job science, there's nothing more that you can teach us. That's silly.

 

Seriously, this is getting to be a really bad habit, this strawman argument. Nobody here has said anything remotely like this, but you choose to ignore what they really said, and instead attack this man of straw you made up because he just stands there and takes it. Some kind of scarecrow screaming "Science has solved it all, we don't need your ideas anymore!" He's so easy to destroy because NOBODY IS SAYING THAT, so everyone agrees that the claim is silly. So much easier to deal with than what was actually said.

 

Meanwhile, you think you've made an argument, and the person who asked you a completely different question gets ignored. Very frustrating, having to discuss anything with someone who strawmans. See if you can spot the strawman here, and you may get my drift about how frustrating it is:

 

#1 - "This war is wrong, our leaders shouldn't have gotten us involved, we have no exit strategy, and it's bleeding our country dry."

 

#2 - "Why don't you support our troops? They're over there fighting for you!"

 

 

 

 

Anonymity won't help you at all without a good grasp of the basics of critical thinking. Even if nobody knows who you are, a lack of basic science skills is going to give you away.

[swansont]

As the saying goes, the truth eventually comes out. Is it possible, however, to propel scientific progress from the point of ridicule to the point of acceptance for ideas that we are unable to comprehend but future generations might?

You still haven't shown that ridicule is a general problem. Sometimes examples are easily recalled because it's an outlier, rather than the norm.

 

If a reputable scientist discovers a truth that he thinks is accurate, but he doesn't feel like it's 100%, or maybe he just can't explain it fully at a particular point in time, would that scientist put his name on a theory that could damage a reputation that took a lifetime to build?

Sure. Happens all the time — science is a highly collaborative process. Einstein developed general relativity by publishing over a number of years and getting feedback. QM was hashed out kinda the same way. You're going to go down blind alleys and be wrong from time to time.

[Sensei]

I like openness. Let everything be visible to all.

That's complete reverse what you proposed in thread title....

 

Have people educated and encourage them to think for themselves. Encourage them to question, without judgement.

Judgment in scientific sense, is confrontation of theory with experimental physics..

If theory can't pass it, it's rejected.

 

The reason why I'm wondering if science can benefit from anonymity is because scientists are human. And they too are susceptible to ego.

Some people are interested in science just because "to get Nobel price", like couple our young scienceforums.net members.. Mentioned it couple times..

They would ignore physics if you would tell them that nobody will know their name

 

There was a time when we thought the idea of flight was ludicrous. There was a time when we thought the universe was static.

It's ridiculous. People who rejected this idea, didn't prove they are right..

Statement was made in times people already flight in balloons (lighter than air objects).

People who claimed it, didnt understand physics, as bird and other living organisms fly in air.

Even thought they're heavier than air. It's just a matter 'how long'.

 

Try harder to find the real example what you claimed in 1st post..

 

Would anonymity help propel ideas that contradict the commonly accepted 'truths'?

Accepted truth, is knowledge. Anybody can perform experiment and confirm it.

 

If you don't know how to confirm some knowledge, you should make thread about it asking for details. It will be given, I am sure.

 

And there's no sense in a dialogue with that individual, at least not yet, because he's still salty.

Genius state means in his case enough positive votes on forum, by other forum members. That is it.

 

If you would be writing about science, and have plentiful positive votes up, and wrote 6000+ posts, you would have also "Genius" title on forum.

 

Agreed. As long as discoveries are open to all, at all times, always and not kept on the down low for the personal gain of a select few.

Which discoveries are kept in secret?

Edited November 17, 2015 by Sensei

[evobulgarevo]

If quality is what you're after, consider checking the reputation system instead. While clearly not flawless, it does offer a quick estimate / meaningful proxy for the overall value of a members contributions to the site here. It also generally goes up over time, unless of course the poster is being trollish and/or unable to add value to discussions even after receiving specific feedback on how to do so. To that end, we see that Strange is currently 1013. I'm 3581. You... well, you're currently at negative 19.

 

The reputation system; a measure of value or conformity? That "negative 19" is due to difference of opinion, because my posts were in support of the less popular view.

 

 

Either way, comments about the reputation system and user ranks based on post count are off-topic and belong in the user feedback forum.

 

That's an evasive statement and this is a philosophical discussion. My comments were inline with the idea of this thread. The idea being that reputation plays a notable part in the scientific community.

[Arete]

The idea being that reputation plays a notable part in the scientific community.

 

This forum is not the scientific community. As was clearly stated, peer review in science IS anonymous. Anonymity is a well recognized, fundamental part of the process of science. After this was established, therest of the thread is rather moot - unless the actual motive is to discuss your reputation points on sfn - which amount to internet points in a discussion forum that aren't actually worth anything.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Arete

[Strange]

The reputation system; a measure of value or conformity? That "negative 19" is due to difference of opinion, because my posts were in support of the less popular view.

 

As noted, the right place for this discussion is elsewhere. But it is worth noting that whenever this comes up those who give negative votes (a lot of people never do) are definite that they do not do it for simple disagreements. Instead them give them for irrational arguments, failing to support an argument, relying on logical and rhetorical fallacies, being evasive, repeating an argument after it has been shown to be wrong, and so on.

 

These are all characteristics of your posting style, so it is not surprising that you have earned a large number of negative votes.

 

There are many people that I disagree with but would never give a negative vote to because they do a competent job of arguing their case and providing support for it.

[evobulgarevo]

That's complete reverse what you proposed in thread title....

 

Quoting out of context tends to have that effect.

 

Judgment in scientific sense, is confrontation of theory with experimental physics.. If theory can't pass it, it's rejected.

 

Judging the theory is a must. Judging the person is counter productive.

 

Some people are interested in science just because "to get Nobel price", like couple our young scienceforums.net members.. Mentioned it couple times.. They would ignore physics if you would tell them that nobody will know their name

 

This is kind of the point. Shouldn't science be completely detached from personal interest? Shouldn't our collective evolution take precedence over an award for personal achievement?

 

 

If you don't know how to confirm some knowledge, you should make thread about it asking for details. It will be given, I am sure.

 

Ok, so provide examples in support of my assertions in the original thread.

 

 

Which discoveries are kept in secret?

 

I guess an example would be Nikola Tesla's work. There are claims that he made some monumental discoveries, which were held back from the public for the personal gain of a select few.

[iNow]

That "negative 19" is due to difference of opinion, because my posts were in support of the less popular view.

As many others have already clarified for you, no. It's simply not, and even if it were this is still all off-topic.

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Internet+Troll&defid=4297114

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

[evobulgarevo]

Anonymity won't help you at all without a good grasp of the basics of critical thinking. Even if nobody knows who you are, a lack of basic science skills is going to give you away.

 

But would detaching reputation, self interest, and personal incentive from science help propel the evolution of scientific though?

[swansont]

This is kind of the point. Shouldn't science be completely detached from personal interest? Shouldn't our collective evolution take precedence over an award for personal achievement?

Scientists are human, so how is that going to happen exactly? Is there any field of endeavor where this has occurred?

[Strange]

This is kind of the point. Shouldn't science be completely detached from personal interest? Shouldn't our collective evolution take precedence over an award for personal achievement?

 

Maybe. But science is a human enterprise. If you remove it too much from human drives and desires then no one will bother with it. Personal rivalries have, occasionally, been an important part of the development of science.

 

I guess an example would be Nikola Tesla's work. There are claims that he made some monumental discoveries, which were held back from the public for the personal gain of a select few.

 

The web is full of conspiracy theories and nonsense.

[evobulgarevo]

As many others have already clarified for you, no. It's simply not, and even if it were this is still all off-topic.

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Internet+Troll&defid=4297114

 

I posted in the discussions "evolution and creation as one" and "Does being an Atheist make you closed minded". My comments were on-topic within those discussions, they were just not in support of how you see the world.

 

And if my comments in this current thread are off-topic, they're merely in reply to you.