3 ms·

I "recieved [sic] a scientific training" as well, and I choose not to call people names for trying out new ideas. Given the state of cosmology these days, all t

I "recieved [sic] a scientific training" as well, and I choose not to call people names for trying out new ideas. Given the state of cosmology these days, all the questions and recent and unexplained phenomena, an open mind towards new hypotheses (yes, and encouraging following them up with tests ... in a non-snide way) is important. "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from.... Fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources." - Sagan

bananabreakfast 7y ago
There is an ocean of difference between being open to new ideas and just letting any new concept get your equal mindshare without a compelling reason like evidence. There is a reason no one that is respected talks about these "crackpot" ideas. The established ideas are here because they survived decades of trying to be proved wrong but they survive since they fit observed nature. New ideas are just that: new. When someone introduces a new type of database HN doesn't say "why won't people take new ideas with an open mind??", they say "SQL works and has been proven. You have to prove your new idea is better before I'll use it." Exact same concept.
fsloth 7y ago
If it quacks like a duck... There are crackpot ideas tightly knit to a group identity like anti-vaccinations, flatearth, and so on. One way to identify crackpots is to look at the idea and figure out is it's presentation more like your CS 101 / physics 101 etc course or some nice respected physics paper, or more like one of the known looney scenes - flatearth, antivaxx, Meyers Briggs, Scientology etc. Then there are the lone looneys. If you don't know what they are talking about - at all - it's best to do some cursory education in the field using some or the other open university resources. So, rule of thumb - look what an anti-vaxx scene looks like, look what a physics basic course looks like, and figure out is it more like one or the other. Stuff that looks like some other looney stuff usually is looney stuff as well. Saying looney for a looney is completely different from disregarding new valid ideas. An example of a borderline case is the 'reactionleas thruster' they've been testing around the world. It would be awesome if it worked. It's a new idea, goes completely against physics. But it's has sufficient testing data to at least merit a second look by third parties.
8bitsrule 7y ago
http://www.scientus.org/Wegener-Continental-Drift.html http://www.scientus.org/Wegener-Continental-Drift.html "Wegener's theory drew from geology, geophysics, zoogeography and paleontology. It also drew the wrath of scientists from these disciplines. These reactions eventually shut down serious discussion of the concept." One funeral at a time.

bananabreakfast 7y ago

There is an ocean of difference between being open to new ideas and just letting any new concept get your equal mindshare without a compelling reason like evidence. There is a reason no one that is respected talks about these "crackpot" ideas. The established ideas are here because they survived decades of trying to be proved wrong but they survive since they fit observed nature. New ideas are just that: new. When someone introduces a new type of database HN doesn't say "why won't people take new ideas with an open mind??", they say "SQL works and has been proven. You have to prove your new idea is better before I'll use it." Exact same concept.

fsloth 7y ago

If it quacks like a duck... There are crackpot ideas tightly knit to a group identity like anti-vaccinations, flatearth, and so on. One way to identify crackpots is to look at the idea and figure out is it's presentation more like your CS 101 / physics 101 etc course or some nice respected physics paper, or more like one of the known looney scenes - flatearth, antivaxx, Meyers Briggs, Scientology etc. Then there are the lone looneys. If you don't know what they are talking about - at all - it's best to do some cursory education in the field using some or the other open university resources. So, rule of thumb - look what an anti-vaxx scene looks like, look what a physics basic course looks like, and figure out is it more like one or the other. Stuff that looks like some other looney stuff usually is looney stuff as well. Saying looney for a looney is completely different from disregarding new valid ideas. An example of a borderline case is the 'reactionleas thruster' they've been testing around the world. It would be awesome if it worked. It's a new idea, goes completely against physics. But it's has sufficient testing data to at least merit a second look by third parties.

8bitsrule 7y ago

http://www.scientus.org/Wegener-Continental-Drift.html http://www.scientus.org/Wegener-Continental-Drift.html "Wegener's theory drew from geology, geophysics, zoogeography and paleontology. It also drew the wrath of scientists from these disciplines. These reactions eventually shut down serious discussion of the concept." One funeral at a time.