4 ms·

The problem is that the more established scientists can play politics and deny/reduce funding for the "crazy" idea. There needs to be balance. I see people rel

The problem is that the more established scientists can play politics and deny/reduce funding for the "crazy" idea. There needs to be balance. I see people religiously hold to the orthodoxy of scientific knowledge rather than the scientific method. But there's also the case where established scientists are financially reliant on what the orthodoxy is as that's what their research is about. The world is complicated and not intuitive and I'm aware there's a distinction between rejection and skepticism, but I feel that people err to rejection much too easily. Some examples of the weirdness of the world: Quantum mechanics and the fact that it's possible to build a windpowered land vehicle that travels directly down wind faster than the wind. Trying to find other examples, I've run across Boltzmann who committed suicide in 1906 likely due to all the pressure he faced trying to get people to accept the idea atoms exist.

maxxxxx 8y ago
"I see people religiously hold to the orthodoxy of scientific knowledge rather than the scientific method. " this seems to be the real problem. a lot of people want to find the final solution for a problem and then close the case once and for all. Edit: That need is probably why we have religions.
- kosievdmerwe 8y ago
  It's especially bad since sometimes you can combine orthodox science in novel ways to get a result that is seemingly ridiculous. I remember there was a paper[1] where someone proved (mathematically mind) that you can change your position in curved space time by simply changing your internal configuration in a loop. By taking advantage that your center of mass behaves weirdly in curved space time. Essentially, this would allow you to move in space without having to throw mass out via a thruster. However, sadly, the displacement is too tiny to be practical. [1] stackexchange which explains this and links the paper: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46180/can-a-deformable-object-swim-in-curved-space-time https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46180/can-a-defo...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
GeekyBear 8y ago
>The problem is that the more established scientists can play politics One of my favorite examples of how religiously dogmatic scientists can be about existing theory is centered around the discovery of quasicrystals. Daniel Shechtman won the Nobel prize for discovering a form of crystals that formed regular non-repeating patterns like Penrose tiles or the tiles used on some Mosques. As evidence, he had electron microscope images of the materiel, very clearly proving the veracity of his discovery, yet double Nobel laureate Linus Pauling took particular pleasure in making his life a living hell, declaring that "there is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasiscientists". >In an interview this year with the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, Shechtman said: "People just laughed at me." He recalled how Linus Pauling, a colossus of science and a double Nobel laureate, mounted a frightening "crusade" against him. After telling Shechtman to go back and read a crystallography textbook, the head of his research group asked him to leave for "bringing disgrace" on the team. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/oct/05/nobel-prize-chemistry-work-quasicrystals https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/oct/05/nobel-prize-... You would think that scientists would be willing to accept physical evidence even if it isn't covered by existing theory, but sadly, they are perfectly willing to reject it.
- Retric 8y ago
  I think we need to separate cases with actual evidence like what you are describing from default behavior. With a little evidence you can defend spending a little more resources studying the same thing. Over time that feedback loop works to both efficiently spend money and change orthodoxy. That’s different from saying X seems likely based on gut feeling or whatever. In the case with zero evidence the goal is to find the cheapest way to gather any support and this initial effort is generally cheap enough to self fund. If not, looking for funding outside of normal channels is a viable option. That proof of concept stage is something of a road block, but less so than generally portrayed.
- Farradfahren 8y ago
  I sometimes wish there was a witness protection program for theorys, that was out of reach for those theory schools currently in power. Preferably it would be managed by another hard science from a diffrent field for each field. That way, the adherence to methods and principles could be checked, but no pregone conclusion would went into this.
BurningFrog 8y ago
I think it would be great if there were several parallel and in some sense competing science systems. Like if Chinese science grew to be an independent force with its own standards and systems. Or if the Gates Foundation and other high spending billionaires managed to build up a parallel eco system that could give brilliant misfits a seconds chance.

maxxxxx 8y ago

"I see people religiously hold to the orthodoxy of scientific knowledge rather than the scientific method. " this seems to be the real problem. a lot of people want to find the final solution for a problem and then close the case once and for all. Edit: That need is probably why we have religions.

kosievdmerwe 8y ago
It's especially bad since sometimes you can combine orthodox science in novel ways to get a result that is seemingly ridiculous. I remember there was a paper[1] where someone proved (mathematically mind) that you can change your position in curved space time by simply changing your internal configuration in a loop. By taking advantage that your center of mass behaves weirdly in curved space time. Essentially, this would allow you to move in space without having to throw mass out via a thruster. However, sadly, the displacement is too tiny to be practical. [1] stackexchange which explains this and links the paper: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46180/can-a-deformable-object-swim-in-curved-space-time https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46180/can-a-defo...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

GeekyBear 8y ago

>The problem is that the more established scientists can play politics One of my favorite examples of how religiously dogmatic scientists can be about existing theory is centered around the discovery of quasicrystals. Daniel Shechtman won the Nobel prize for discovering a form of crystals that formed regular non-repeating patterns like Penrose tiles or the tiles used on some Mosques. As evidence, he had electron microscope images of the materiel, very clearly proving the veracity of his discovery, yet double Nobel laureate Linus Pauling took particular pleasure in making his life a living hell, declaring that "there is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasiscientists". >In an interview this year with the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, Shechtman said: "People just laughed at me." He recalled how Linus Pauling, a colossus of science and a double Nobel laureate, mounted a frightening "crusade" against him. After telling Shechtman to go back and read a crystallography textbook, the head of his research group asked him to leave for "bringing disgrace" on the team. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/oct/05/nobel-prize-chemistry-work-quasicrystals https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/oct/05/nobel-prize-... You would think that scientists would be willing to accept physical evidence even if it isn't covered by existing theory, but sadly, they are perfectly willing to reject it.

Retric 8y ago
I think we need to separate cases with actual evidence like what you are describing from default behavior. With a little evidence you can defend spending a little more resources studying the same thing. Over time that feedback loop works to both efficiently spend money and change orthodoxy. That’s different from saying X seems likely based on gut feeling or whatever. In the case with zero evidence the goal is to find the cheapest way to gather any support and this initial effort is generally cheap enough to self fund. If not, looking for funding outside of normal channels is a viable option. That proof of concept stage is something of a road block, but less so than generally portrayed.
Farradfahren 8y ago
I sometimes wish there was a witness protection program for theorys, that was out of reach for those theory schools currently in power. Preferably it would be managed by another hard science from a diffrent field for each field. That way, the adherence to methods and principles could be checked, but no pregone conclusion would went into this.

BurningFrog 8y ago

I think it would be great if there were several parallel and in some sense competing science systems. Like if Chinese science grew to be an independent force with its own standards and systems. Or if the Gates Foundation and other high spending billionaires managed to build up a parallel eco system that could give brilliant misfits a seconds chance.