7 ms·

But is still worth noting. Science tends to be pretty rigid, and often dismissive of outlandish theories because participants in the field are too close to 'soc

by czbond 6y ago

But is still worth noting. Science tends to be pretty rigid, and often dismissive of outlandish theories because participants in the field are too close to 'socially accepted facts'. Which as we know from human existence - humans have small minds due to social conformity.....

mellosouls 6y ago
It's not worth noting - because we also know that almost all theories of this ilk tend to be dismissed because they break the laws of physics.
- czbond 6y ago
  Mind expanding ideas are - because they help the mind to make connections in the future in which they involved. The field of science contains numerous personality types, some of which are creative, some of which are analytical. It is often worth the analytical (who must see data) to entertain those with creativity or intuition to make the jump - since often data does not lead to leap insights. Incremental science happens because of data; leap science happens because of creativity and intuition to explore the areas data hasn't 'gapped to'. And it is the difference when 'the data does not yet lead there, so we can't think there' that I refer to for social conformity.
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    Non conformity is used as an excuse by cranks to justify their lack of academic groundwork and resulting acceptance. Once in a blue moon one of these outsiders turns up something genuinely impressive. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that is the case here.
- jlokier 6y ago
  > almost all theories of this ilk tend to be dismissed because they break the laws of physics. Actually no. Theories of this ilk which demonstrate their consistency with laws of physics to the level of observations already made and significantly beyond, tend to end up studied more, by more people. Especially ones that take an unusual angle, and end up deriving existing laws of physics almost as a surprising side effect. It suggests a useful insight. Even better if they take an unusual angle, predict some differences from assumed existing laws but only in unusual circumstances nobody has tried to observe so far, and are consistent with those laws in areas already observed. Or ones which explain existing laws better than current explanations. Notably the inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum mechanics mean that anything which can explain both at the same time and give correct answers to both is quite interesting. The ones that get dismissed quickly are those which aren't consistent with laws of physics that are already assumed, especially at the level of existing observations.
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    No, that only happens if there is a convincing argument that covers more ground than existing theories with testable predictions. What new predictions (ie. not covered by existing theories) does this theory propose that are testable?
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
I'd like to know if you can give some evidence in the past (say) 20 years that science has discarded or delayed acceptance of a good theory because of 'social conformity'.
- czbond 6y ago
  I'm talking at the individual level - humans are socially pressured to conform to their field of study current beliefs (in any field). It takes long periods of time for ideas that go against the grain to bubble up to become 'mass conscious' within a field. Especially in areas requiring higher mathematics where practitioners can feel inferior.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Which I'm saying I don't believe. Show me recent examples where it happened, I asked. > Especially in areas requiring higher mathematics I just don't recognise this at all. Why do you say this? The journals are full of new discoveries, my experience with mathematicians is they're a very open and accommodating bunch (ok, it's not my field, but still)
- BadThink6655321 6y ago
  See the <a href=“ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment”>Millikan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment”>Millika... Oil Drop Experiment</a>, particularly the section “ Millikan's experiment as an example of psychological effects in scientific methodology”
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Interesting, I'll have a careful read of that but I must point out it was from 90 years ago, a bit outside my stated margin!
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Fixed link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan's_experiment_as_an_example_of_psychological_effects_in_scientific_methodology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan's...

by czbond 6y ago

mellosouls 6y ago

It's not worth noting - because we also know that almost all theories of this ilk tend to be dismissed because they break the laws of physics.

czbond 6y ago
Mind expanding ideas are - because they help the mind to make connections in the future in which they involved. The field of science contains numerous personality types, some of which are creative, some of which are analytical. It is often worth the analytical (who must see data) to entertain those with creativity or intuition to make the jump - since often data does not lead to leap insights. Incremental science happens because of data; leap science happens because of creativity and intuition to explore the areas data hasn't 'gapped to'. And it is the difference when 'the data does not yet lead there, so we can't think there' that I refer to for social conformity.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  Non conformity is used as an excuse by cranks to justify their lack of academic groundwork and resulting acceptance. Once in a blue moon one of these outsiders turns up something genuinely impressive. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that is the case here.
jlokier 6y ago
> almost all theories of this ilk tend to be dismissed because they break the laws of physics. Actually no. Theories of this ilk which demonstrate their consistency with laws of physics to the level of observations already made and significantly beyond, tend to end up studied more, by more people. Especially ones that take an unusual angle, and end up deriving existing laws of physics almost as a surprising side effect. It suggests a useful insight. Even better if they take an unusual angle, predict some differences from assumed existing laws but only in unusual circumstances nobody has tried to observe so far, and are consistent with those laws in areas already observed. Or ones which explain existing laws better than current explanations. Notably the inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum mechanics mean that anything which can explain both at the same time and give correct answers to both is quite interesting. The ones that get dismissed quickly are those which aren't consistent with laws of physics that are already assumed, especially at the level of existing observations.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  No, that only happens if there is a convincing argument that covers more ground than existing theories with testable predictions. What new predictions (ie. not covered by existing theories) does this theory propose that are testable?

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

I'd like to know if you can give some evidence in the past (say) 20 years that science has discarded or delayed acceptance of a good theory because of 'social conformity'.

czbond 6y ago
I'm talking at the individual level - humans are socially pressured to conform to their field of study current beliefs (in any field). It takes long periods of time for ideas that go against the grain to bubble up to become 'mass conscious' within a field. Especially in areas requiring higher mathematics where practitioners can feel inferior.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Which I'm saying I don't believe. Show me recent examples where it happened, I asked. > Especially in areas requiring higher mathematics I just don't recognise this at all. Why do you say this? The journals are full of new discoveries, my experience with mathematicians is they're a very open and accommodating bunch (ok, it's not my field, but still)
BadThink6655321 6y ago
See the <a href=“ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment”>Millikan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment”>Millika... Oil Drop Experiment</a>, particularly the section “ Millikan's experiment as an example of psychological effects in scientific methodology”
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Interesting, I'll have a careful read of that but I must point out it was from 90 years ago, a bit outside my stated margin!
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Fixed link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan's_experiment_as_an_example_of_psychological_effects_in_scientific_methodology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan's...