Should new information about old scandals prompt a second look at past theories?

[Opendreamer78]

Just how much sway does large corporations and politics have on science and technology? I would have to say, profoundly, as well as, none whatsoever. Science without the hazards of the human element are deemed laws. Yet how those laws can be manipulated are governed usually by the investor. A wanna-be dictator would produce a very different set of results concerning "free energy" than would a philanthropist's results would they not? So what I'm asking is this, are we really sure of the things that we claim to be really sure about? In my mind, I feel that amateurs are especially needed for this "problem" since yes, they haven't yet learned the work of their predessesors, but they haven't learned the bad habits yet either. I now cringe when someone tells me that something that can be imagined, is impossible. Am I the only one?

[Strange]

A wanna-be dictator would produce a very different set of results concerning "free energy" than would a philanthropist's results would they not?

 

I don't see why. Well, I do. The dictator would quite happily promote false results if it made him look good or fitted with a political agenda. (Look at Lysenkoism, for example.)

 

 

I now cringe when someone tells me that something that can be imagined, is impossible.

 

Some things are impossible. Just because it can be imagined doesn't change reality.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Strange

[Opendreamer78]

Agreed, some things are impossible, i wasnt specific enough, my bad.

[Sensei]

Just how much sway does large corporations and politics have on science and technology? I would have to say, profoundly, as well as, none whatsoever.

Politicians can ban, disallowing making scientific research, producing or selling product.

f.e. in vitro in too religious fundamental countries is banned.

 

Title of your thread has no sense to me, and completely not correlate with content of post.

 

"Should new information about old scandals prompt a second look at past theories?"

 

What "old scandals"??

 

What "past theories" need revision?

Edited September 23, 2016 by Sensei

[Opendreamer78]

So is there a collective who deals with this problem? Or is it up to the disenfranchised? I just curious because the implications could be quite vast wouldn't you think?

[Delta1212]

The idea that amateurs are not only capable of contributing to meaningful science but that they are actually necessary because they haven't been indoctrinated by misguided ideas yet is both very appealing and mostly wrong.

 

It's appealing because we all start as amateurs and most of us remain that way, because putting in the work to become a professional is both time consuming and difficult.

 

Unfortunately, there is a reason for that. There is a huge amount of information out there, and that includes not just what we do know about the world but also what we know has already been tried and didn't work. An amateur tinkering in his garage might stumble upon something new and innovative, but most likely they'll be spending a lot of time stumbling down the exact same blind alleys that hundreds of thousands of other amateur scientists and inventors have stumbled down before them.

 

A truly innovative perspective doesn't come from a lack of education. That's not a unique perspective; it's the one everyone starts with and there are plenty of people in the world with the exact same perspective, making the exact same suggestions and critiques without realizing that they've been suggested uncountable times before. No, a truly unique perspective comes from being highly educated in the field in question and being highly educated in some other field that scientists and engineers aren't typically highly educated in.

 

It's not as appealing of an idea, but bringing something new to the table requires doing more work than everyone else, not less.

[Strange]

So is there a collective who deals with this problem? Or is it up to the disenfranchised? I just curious because the implications could be quite vast wouldn't you think?

 

I'm not sure what problem you are referring to.

 

Anyone can contribute to science in various ways. You can study and become a working scientist. You can become a writer/journalist and report on what scientists do. You can join one of the many (probably hundreds, if not thousands, by now) "citizen science" projects. You could even become a politician and affect where the funding goes!

[Opendreamer78]

Excellent point! Well said! but unfortunate, mainly because of the costs associated with achieving a phd...which would work well for a "wanna-be dictator". C'est la vie though eh? [sigh]

[Strange]

So what do you see as "the problem"?

[Phi for All]

In my mind, I feel that amateurs are especially needed for this "problem" since yes, they haven't yet learned the work of their predessesors, but they haven't learned the bad habits yet either. I now cringe when someone tells me that something that can be imagined, is impossible. Am I the only one?

 

Oh heavens no, you're not the only one. There seem to be hundreds of thousands of you, thinking that by aiming in an unfocused way, you'll hit the target nobody else has been able to hit.

 

I wonder if professional sports teams get calls from amateurs, encouraging coaches to give them a chance despite having only played some sandlot sports? "As a bonus, I don't have all those bad habits your million dollar players have."

 

Science is a LOT of facts and data that need to be put together in a special way to build meaningful, trustworthy information. Learning at least the methodology is critical. There are connections you simply won't be able to make without prior knowledge. You might be able to figure out how to start a car, but without a lot of prior knowledge about maps, gasoline, driving laws, languages, people, weather, and more, you aren't going to be effective as an automotive innovator. It's the same with science.

 

Discovery is more like getting a job than winning the lottery.

[Opendreamer78]

Yes, but youre missing the point of my original post.

[Phi for All]

Yes, but youre missing the point of my original post.

 

I answered what I understood. I can't agree with your contention that politics and finance don't have an influence on science. There are types of research that are critical to advancement that need public funding, since the returns on investment are difficult to calculate. Private interests won't touch that kind of research because they don't make money from it in the short term.

 

Good science is testable by peers, so it's highly unlikely your dictator could fool those outside his control. You're suggesting we have theories that might be wrong, simply because we've always assumed they're right. This isn't the way science works. You don't understand what a theory is if you can think this way. A theory gets corrected and tweaked almost constantly, but there's no chance any of our major theories is "way off base". A theory is the strongest thing there is in science.

[Willie71]

Just how much sway does large corporations and politics have on science and technology? I would have to say, profoundly, as well as, none whatsoever. Science without the hazards of the human element are deemed laws. Yet how those laws can be manipulated are governed usually by the investor. A wanna-be dictator would produce a very different set of results concerning "free energy" than would a philanthropist's results would they not? So what I'm asking is this, are we really sure of the things that we claim to be really sure about? In my mind, I feel that amateurs are especially needed for this "problem" since yes, they haven't yet learned the work of their predessesors, but they haven't learned the bad habits yet either. I now cringe when someone tells me that something that can be imagined, is impossible. Am I the only one?

I used to think science from respected institutions was corruption free. However, there have been more reports of corporate donors influencing the purity of the work. There was a recent story about the sugar industry influencing the work done at Harvard iirc. I'll have to look it up for the details. The FDA having lobbyists from large pharmaceutical companies on its board is also a crossing of boundaries.

 

 

Here's the first link that came up when I searched "Harvard sugar.:

 

https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/12/sugar-industry-harvard-research/

 

Interesting read.

[Delta1212]

I think a big part of the problem is that popular science and low level education focus more on the "stories" and less on the predictions of scientific theories. It's very easy to assume that we've been telling ourselves the wrong story and that in reality everything is different than we think it is.

 

It becomes much less easy to think that way once you discover that scientists are much less concerned with the stories that get told about their results than they are with the results themselves, and that the real scientific theories are actually mathematical descriptions of precisely how things behave in reality and that these descriptions get tested over and over again in different circumstances such that it becomes very apparent when something isn't working the way it is supposed to, and this is actually what drives forward progress.

 

To some degree, I think people are given the impression that all of our theories are the result of lofty philosophizing about the nature of reality. In truth, real science is a collection of very precisely detailed accounts of exactly what happens when you go out and poke reality with a stick.

 

All you need to do is grab a stick yourself and see what happens when you give things a poke to tell whether the current accounts hold water or not. That's not something you can fake over extended periods of time.

I used to think science from respected institutions was corruption free. However, there have been more reports of corporate donors influencing the purity of the work. There was a recent story about the sugar industry influencing the work done at Harvard iirc. I'll have to look it up for the details. The FDA having lobbyists from large pharmaceutical companies on its board is also a crossing of boundaries.

 

 

Here's the first link that came up when I searched "Harvard sugar.:

 

https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/12/sugar-industry-harvard-research/

 

Interesting read.

The rather simple solution is to not trust results from any single source. That's really a decent policy even if there is no corruption involved. Sometimes people make mistakes. Sometimes people are biased. Sometimes things break down. Sometimes people do everything perfectly and wind up with a statistical fluke in their results.

 

Results really need to be replicated, preferably many times, before they can be considered fully reliable. Unfortunately, for many things, especially the more off-beat or niche studies, there is scant follow-up, so we're left with a lot of maybes that get treated as facts by the press until the next study comes along years later and determines the result from the first one was erroneous.

[CharonY]

There

 

I used to think science from respected institutions was corruption free. However, there have been more reports of corporate donors influencing the purity of the work. There was a recent story about the sugar industry influencing the work done at Harvard iirc. I'll have to look it up for the details. The FDA having lobbyists from large pharmaceutical companies on its board is also a crossing of boundaries.


Here's the first link that came up when I searched "Harvard sugar.:

https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/12/sugar-industry-harvard-research/

Interesting read.

 

There has always been an interest in misappropriating science to further ones own agenda. Politics has done it as well as corporations. That is why disclosure policies have been implemented and why tenure is such an important element. Obviously, that does not prevent individuals or even institutions to make questionable decisions. That being said, there are two arenas which only partly overlap that we are talking about. One is that of policy and policy-making and the other is the actual science. The latter tends to be self-correcting, with the big caveat that if it is very costly to do so, politics can influence the situation by manipulating how grants are issued. For example, there is an ongoing push to make all research applied, with fundamental research getting less and less funding.(in various countries). In that situation bad science may be able to persist longer than it should. Amateur science is unlikely to help as it is also devoid of funding but also largely devoid of expertise.

[Willie71]

I think a big part of the problem is that popular science and low level education focus more on the "stories" and less on the predictions of scientific theories. It's very easy to assume that we've been telling ourselves the wrong story and that in reality everything is different than we think it is.

It becomes much less easy to think that way once you discover that scientists are much less concerned with the stories that get told about their results than they are with the results themselves, and that the real scientific theories are actually mathematical descriptions of precisely how things behave in reality and that these descriptions get tested over and over again in different circumstances such that it becomes very apparent when something isn't working the way it is supposed to, and this is actually what drives forward progress.

To some degree, I think people are given the impression that all of our theories are the result of lofty philosophizing about the nature of reality. In truth, real science is a collection of very precisely detailed accounts of exactly what happens when you go out and poke reality with a stick.

All you need to do is grab a stick yourself and see what happens when you give things a poke to tell whether the current accounts hold water or not. That's not something you can fake over extended periods of time.

 

The rather simple solution is to not trust results from any single source. That's really a decent policy even if there is no corruption involved. Sometimes people make mistakes. Sometimes people are biased. Sometimes things break down. Sometimes people do everything perfectly and wind up with a statistical fluke in their results.

Results really need to be replicated, preferably many times, before they can be considered fully reliable. Unfortunately, for many things, especially the more off-beat or niche studies, there is scant follow-up, so we're left with a lot of maybes that get treated as facts by the press until the next study comes along years later and determines the result from the first one was erroneous.

When Working on program development, I rely as much as possible on meta-analysis. I no longer defend the integrity of science from what I previously considered very reliable sources. I always provide a caveat now. Edited September 24, 2016 by Willie71

[Strange]

Yes, but youre missing the point of my original post.

 

 

It is not clear (to me) what your point is.

[Opendreamer78]

Honestly, I think I'm staring at my answer. This forum and sites like it combine the amateurs enthusiasm with proffessional's experience beautifully. I'm new here, and I like it!

[Opendreamer78]

One thing I would like to make a point on though, is that when I use the term amateur, I am referring to someone who is not in the field of science as their principle profession. I am not referring to idiots who know nothing of research or the necessity of verifiable evidence. Why is it that I feel that most debates within science boils down to arguments over the definitions of terms? I guess that's all science is.

[Ophiolite]

Can you point to any specific generally accepted theory that you suspect may be seriously flawed? If so, what leads you to suspect this flaw, other than the principal that science sometimes gets things wrong?

[Opendreamer78]

I was thinking of N. Tesla, but I'm still reading.

[Ophiolite]

I was thinking of N. Tesla, but I'm still reading.

Detailed research has revealed that thinking of Tesla is generally not a good idea. Mentioning that you are thinking of him is almost never a good idea.

[Phi for All]

Why is it that I feel that most debates within science boils down to arguments over the definitions of terms? I guess that's all science is.

 

I see this argument only from people who want to misuse a well-understood, well-defined term to promote an alternative idea. You'll generally run into problems with this, and rightly so. Walk into ANY group of professionals, and start misusing terms they're very familiar with, and you'll get a similar reaction.

 

It's more about accuracy and understanding than pedantry. And as a perspective, shouldn't the one person coming in with an alternative idea use the definitions used by the mainstream? Why would you expect everyone else to change?

[Opendreamer78]

Okay, thanks for the enlightenment. But this site should state that only qualified personnel are welcome. As soon as I figure out how to delete my account I will. Learning is great!

[Ophiolite]

 

And as a perspective, shouldn't the one person coming in with an alternative idea use the definitions used by the mainstream? Why would you expect everyone else to change?

My perspective on this "sort of thing":

 

The underlying motive for those who question mainstream science are very close indeed to those who practice mainstream science. A fascination with the character of one or more aspects of the universe and a strong desire to further our understanding of those aspects. Youth, or lack of education in the field places few constraints on what can or should be challenged. This encourages me to try to be sympathetic even when faced with the same weak arguments, presented as original thought, but backed with the same ineffective cliches.

 

As to the matter of definitions, I suspect this is a combination of misunderstanding what the correct definition means and a genuine insight into what might be a commonplace for the experienced, but is an eye-opener for the neophyte, regardless of how badly contorted and wrong it may be.

Okay, thanks for the enlightenment. But this site should state that only qualified personnel are welcome. As soon as I figure out how to delete my account I will. Learning is great!

I hope you will decide to remain. One of the most difficult things to learn is that the practice of science often involves brutal and vigorous attacks on the ideas of others. Trust me: if you feel you were subject to severe criticism you are badly mistaken. If a long term member had thought you were well versed in the sciences they would have dismembered your post in excruciating an painful detail, twisted your intestines into a knotted mess and run them through an industrial strength grinder.

 

If you were not welcome then members would not have taken the time to criticise your idea. If you were not welcome they would simply have ignored you. Odd as it may seem taking the time to point out the errors in your thinking is a sign of respect for you.

 

Do stay.