Does a speculation if proven become accepted science?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Let's stick to the more general topic of the OP and not get bogged down in the specifics of a particular thread.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

OT posts have been moved to http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94060-what-is-the-best-3d-description-of-gravitational-waves/page-2#entry913083

[Klaynos]

The review that happens here is nothing compared to a good journals peer review.

 

There are now some "discussion" peer review journals where you can see the submitted paper and the reviewers comments. You should read some, it'll be eye opening. I wouldn't suggest adding any comments though.

[swansont]

The review that happens here is nothing compared to a good journals peer review.

 

 

I would say the review that happens here is more like a watered-down version of the peer review you do with your colleagues before you'd even think about writing a paper. Except that a scientist is much more likely to present an idea as "I had a crazy thought [explains thought] and it gives me this weird result [result]. What am I missing?" Rather than run with the idea that contradicts established science, the typical scientist will assume a crazy answer is wrong until s/he and several other people have had a chance to tear it down. What we get here is generally people insisting that they're right at this stage of the game (often sans any math, so it's even more preliminary than that)

[Klaynos]

That seems fair.

 

The hrmmm I wonder stage. Which normally gets dismissed before you even mention it to anyone.

[Robittybob1]

That seems fair.

 

The hrmmm I wonder stage. Which normally gets dismissed before you even mention it to anyone.

When you do speak about it to your colleagues (forum members) or your team, not all individuals will have the same set of skills. I'm sure the idea doesn't have to be fully developed when you first mention it, but you need to have a certain amount of conviction that you could be right otherwise you wouldn't even open your mouth.

[Strange]

When you do speak about it to your colleagues (forum members) or your team, not all individuals will have the same set of skills. I'm sure the idea doesn't have to be fully developed when you first mention it, but you need to have a certain amount of conviction that you could be right otherwise you wouldn't even open your mouth.

 

You might be convinced you are wrong but not be able to see why (this has happened to me several times at work; I have usually missed something really obvious). See for example, the paper published about "superluminal" neutrinos. The authors explicitly said: "this must be wrong, help us work out why".

[Robittybob1]

 

You might be convinced you are wrong but not be able to see why (this has happened to me several times at work; I have usually missed something really obvious). See for example, the paper published about "superluminal" neutrinos. The authors explicitly said: "this must be wrong, help us work out why".

Yes OK I can see that, but wasn't it put down to a poor connection. It is that person who discovered that poor connection who has to have the courage to say "I think it was just a poor connection". That becomes the speculation.

[Klaynos]

Often when I'm talking to someone I'll realise why the idea is wrong and use the phrase "I'm being an idiot" and explain why it was a stupid idea. Two of my ideas have gone on to be new method in a couple of different fields though, which is pretty good going really. Helps that what I work on now is a new developing field and there's only a couple of people worldwide working on it.

[Robittybob1]

Often when I'm talking to someone I'll realise why the idea is wrong and use the phrase "I'm being an idiot" and explain why it was a stupid idea. Two of my ideas have gone on to be new method in a couple of different fields though, which is pretty good going really. Helps that what I work on now is a new developing field and there's only a couple of people worldwide working on it.

So you have to be willing to make mistakes, take the chance to be proven wrong. It is that inventive mind, you are looking for that variation that will make the difference, but you have to be able to express it, like it isn't a technical skill. To me it is a thought process, but not just trial and error.

Good on you for being able to that Klaynos. Sounds like you are working on cutting edge stuff.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Klaynos]

Being wrong is a common occurrence in science. Getting over it and realising it quickly is critical.

[swansont]

When you do speak about it to your colleagues (forum members) or your team, not all individuals will have the same set of skills.

 

 

But we have the same basic skills: a solid foundation in physics and the math to go with it. That helps tremendously. It allows you to make the first analysis yourself, and cull a lot of impulsive ideas that are wrong for fairly obvious reasons. What we see in speculations generally lacks that. The problem is that there is often push-back from even that level of criticism, because pointing out that their idea violates some conservation principle, or the units are wrong, or some other basic issue, means nothing to them. So they never realize (or apparently accept) that their idea is dead on arrival.

[Klaynos]

Quite often the ideas are too poorly described to even do the first step in analysis.

[Phi for All]

Quite often the ideas are too poorly described to even do the first step in analysis.

 

I blame this on adamancy. Most of these ideas come in as rants of "I've proven Einstein WRONG! My idea is the right one!!" Almost NONE of them start by asking questions, or posing the concept that they've found a discrepancy they don't understand, and can this be right? They immediately trigger the braking mechanism on most of the membership, and the threads get bogged down in half explanations, half incredulous admonitions.

 

But we have the same basic skills: a solid foundation in physics and the math to go with it. That helps tremendously. It allows you to make the first analysis yourself, and cull a lot of impulsive ideas that are wrong for fairly obvious reasons. What we see in speculations generally lacks that. The problem is that there is often push-back from even that level of criticism, because pointing out that their idea violates some conservation principle, or the units are wrong, or some other basic issue, means nothing to them. So they never realize (or apparently accept) that their idea is dead on arrival.

 

I like the way you've put this. Education and training doesn't slave one to mainstream concepts, but rather they allow one to see in greater detail, nuance, and depth from the start of an idea. Speculation of the sort we get here probably looks like grainy old sepia tone photographs, when a professional physicist is capable of seeing at extreme resolution in millions of colors.

[Robittybob1]

 

 

But we have the same basic skills: a solid foundation in physics and the math to go with it. That helps tremendously. It allows you to make the first analysis yourself, and cull a lot of impulsive ideas that are wrong for fairly obvious reasons. What we see in speculations generally lacks that. The problem is that there is often push-back from even that level of criticism, because pointing out that their idea violates some conservation principle, or the units are wrong, or some other basic issue, means nothing to them. So they never realize (or apparently accept) that their idea is dead on arrival.

They seem to be predominantly those "one hit wonders", where they post a speculation but never come back to defend it. I regret not doing more maths at school and subsequent, for I do like it, but it doesn't come naturally. I am sure I think in terms of physics even without the maths. I am learning maths behind the scenes.

[swansont]

They seem to be predominantly those "one hit wonders", where they post a speculation but never come back to defend it.

No, not really.

[Bignose]

I am sure I think in terms of physics even without the maths.

Intuition is often wrong. This confidence is not founded. Accepting this fact, and then taking steps to remedy it, will actually demonstrate a willingness to improve the situation. Otherwise, I feel you'll be on this same path no matter how "sure" you are of your own abilities.

[Arete]

Just some perspective - I'm a collaborator on a project that involves some pretty novel treatments for multi drug resistant bacterial infections. We have multiple funding sources and are in stage 1 clinical trials, with some promising results. We've been somewhat hammered in the big 3 journals for our results being too speculative, and too preliminary. This after proof of concept in vitro, and proof of efficacy in actual patients in preliminary tests. In other words, multiple experiments and proof in the field is sometimes not enough for top accolades in science.

 

Another example, the hygiene hypothesis is still regarded as a hypothesis despite over 25 years of investigation, is still regarded as a hypothesis and not a theory.

[Robittybob1]

Just some perspective - I'm a collaborator on a project that involves some pretty novel treatments for multi drug resistant bacterial infections. We have multiple funding sources and are in stage 1 clinical trials, with some promising results. We've been somewhat hammered in the big 3 journals for our results being too speculative, and too preliminary. This after proof of concept in vitro, and proof of efficacy in actual patients in preliminary tests. In other words, multiple experiments and proof in the field is sometimes not enough for top accolades in science.

 

Another example, the hygiene hypothesis is still regarded as a hypothesis despite over 25 years of investigation, is still regarded as a hypothesis and not a theory.

Have you discussed this as a separate thread?

[Strange]

They seem to be predominantly those "one hit wonders", where they post a speculation but never come back to defend it.

 

They are slightly less annoying than those who repeatedly come back to say exactly the same thing, as if it had never been questioned or refuted. Even after being banned.

[Robittybob1]

 

They are slightly less annoying than those who repeatedly come back to say exactly the same thing, as if it had never been questioned or refuted. Even after being banned.

The forum has a thread tracking why people were banned. Do you analyse that thread?

[swansont]

The forum has a thread tracking why people were banned. Do you analyse that thread?

 

 

I don't think there's a single logged banning of someone with 1 post. People who violate the rules so egregiously that they would be banned after 1 post generally have that post removed (typically spamvertising or porn), and we don't bother to log those incidents.

 

Those frequenters of speculations who have been banned often have been suspended first, and warned prior to that. So they cannot be "one hit wonders".

[Robittybob1]

 

 

I don't think there's a single logged banning of someone with 1 post. People who violate the rules so egregiously that they would be banned after 1 post generally have that post removed (typically spamvertising or porn), and we don't bother to log those incidents.

 

Those frequenters of speculations who have been banned often have been suspended first, and warned prior to that. So they cannot be "one hit wonders".

"sockpuppets" would be the biggest issue from memory.

[Klaynos]

People who are registering second accounts to circumvent a ban, yes we extend the ban to the new account.

[Strange]

The forum has a thread tracking why people were banned. Do you analyse that thread?

 

I do, actually. It is the only thread I am subscribed to. Partly so I know there is no point continuing to compose that killer refutation that is totally going to end the discussion permanently. Also because it has a bizare fascination, like the initial rounds of TV talent shows. But mainly so I know why people have suddenly stopped posting to a thread.