3 ms·

> They are mutually exclusive. No they aren't. It's actually the opposite. Everything we accept as science started off as "kooky". Germ theory was started by a

by disown 6y ago

> They are mutually exclusive. No they aren't. It's actually the opposite. Everything we accept as science started off as "kooky". Germ theory was started by a "kooks" who thought there were small invisible organism that made us sick. It wasn't until microscopes were invented that they were validated. From mendel to copernicus, much of science was viewed as "kooky" and rejected initially by the educated elites. The idea of continental drift was ridiculed and mocked for decades until it was found to be correct. > All the ones worth anything are published in peer reviewed journals. Actually, all the ones worth anything aren't published in peer reviewed journals initially. The truly transformational ideas are almost always rejected because journals exist to maintain the status quo. Also, you have a slavish reverence for "insiders" when they are flawed creatures as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man All great science is "kooky". But not everything "kooky" is great science. So not mutually exclusive at all.

mr_overalls 6y ago
"Paradigm-breaking" and "kooky" are different. Pais's language is gibberish, refers to yet-unsupported effects named after himself, and betrays a lack of understanding of basic principles in the field he seeks to revolutionize. It is overwhelmingly likely that he's simply a crackpot.
protastus 6y ago
Science requires tests for demonstration and refutation. Things that don't describe the real world are outside the realm of science. Ideas are a dime a dozen, especially if they're as simple as imagining matter being built out of tiny blocks or disease being caused by tiny invisible things.
- throwaway316943 6y ago
  I see a lot of people arguing and not a lot of testing. He’s filed several patents all of which describe how to build each invention and all of which rely on the same basic principle. If you really consider yourself a qualified man of science then get building. As for simple ideas, they’re all obvious in hindsight once those tricky details have been worked out and equally obvious paradigms have been broken.
GeekyBear 6y ago
>Everything we accept as science started off as "kooky". An excellent example of this from modern times: >An Israeli scientist who suffered years of ridicule and even lost a research post for claiming to have found an entirely new class of solid material was awarded the Nobel Prize for chemistry on Wednesday for his discovery of quasicrystals. “People just laughed at me,” Shechtman recalled in an interview this year with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, noting how Linus Pauling, a colossus of science and double Nobel laureate, mounted a frightening “crusade” against him, saying: “There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists.” After telling Shechtman to go back and read the textbook, the head of his research group asked him to leave for “bringing disgrace” on the team. “I felt rejected,” Shachtman remembered. https://www.reuters.com/article/nobel-chemistry/corrected-update-3-ridiculed-crystal-work-wins-nobel-for-israeli-idUSL5E7L51U620111005 https://www.reuters.com/article/nobel-chemistry/corrected-up...

by disown 6y ago

mr_overalls 6y ago

"Paradigm-breaking" and "kooky" are different. Pais's language is gibberish, refers to yet-unsupported effects named after himself, and betrays a lack of understanding of basic principles in the field he seeks to revolutionize. It is overwhelmingly likely that he's simply a crackpot.

protastus 6y ago

Science requires tests for demonstration and refutation. Things that don't describe the real world are outside the realm of science. Ideas are a dime a dozen, especially if they're as simple as imagining matter being built out of tiny blocks or disease being caused by tiny invisible things.

throwaway316943 6y ago
I see a lot of people arguing and not a lot of testing. He’s filed several patents all of which describe how to build each invention and all of which rely on the same basic principle. If you really consider yourself a qualified man of science then get building. As for simple ideas, they’re all obvious in hindsight once those tricky details have been worked out and equally obvious paradigms have been broken.

GeekyBear 6y ago

>Everything we accept as science started off as "kooky". An excellent example of this from modern times: >An Israeli scientist who suffered years of ridicule and even lost a research post for claiming to have found an entirely new class of solid material was awarded the Nobel Prize for chemistry on Wednesday for his discovery of quasicrystals. “People just laughed at me,” Shechtman recalled in an interview this year with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, noting how Linus Pauling, a colossus of science and double Nobel laureate, mounted a frightening “crusade” against him, saying: “There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists.” After telling Shechtman to go back and read the textbook, the head of his research group asked him to leave for “bringing disgrace” on the team. “I felt rejected,” Shachtman remembered. https://www.reuters.com/article/nobel-chemistry/corrected-update-3-ridiculed-crystal-work-wins-nobel-for-israeli-idUSL5E7L51U620111005 https://www.reuters.com/article/nobel-chemistry/corrected-up...