3 ms·

There is another side to this lesson. I cannot count the amount of times I've read about scientists in the past getting ridiculed for some "crackpot" theory onl

There is another side to this lesson. I cannot count the amount of times I've read about scientists in the past getting ridiculed for some "crackpot" theory only to be vindicated later. A perfect example is Ohm's law: "Ohm's initial publication was met with ridicule and dismissal; called "a tissue of naked fantasy." Approx. twenty years passed before scientists began to recognize its great importance." The site here has a whole list of these "maverick scientists": http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html#j9 http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html#j9 I think the other lesson we need to consider is, just because an idea appears to be crazy, doesn't mean it is... The Author, by presenting his theory in a way that also illustrates his awareness of the possibility that he himself is also crazy, was able to get it published by the New Yorker as a symbolic piece on the dangers of getting sucked into a conspiracy theory. If this was his plan, I think it's a good one as there's too many technical summaries, pictures and diagrams for this not be an article that is in part promoting a conspiracy theory.

tbabb 12y ago
> I cannot count the amount of times I've read about scientists in the past getting ridiculed for some "crackpot" theory only to be vindicated later. People love to point to underdog scientists who were later "vindicated" and then compare their own pet theories to them. 1) That's incredibly arrogant. 2) That disregards the 10^n other theories that are discredited correctly every day. 3) The scientists who "nobody believed" were right because they did an incredible amount of very careful, thorough research which bolstered their case well past the point where it could be ignored. They weren't wild hunches. > published by the New Yorker New York Magazine. Big difference there.
- crimsonalucard 12y ago
  Lets make it clear. I'm not vindicating his theory I'm saying it's equally ignorant to not consider a theory because it just seems improbable.
  - tbabb 12y ago
    A theory being improbable is probably the best reason not to give it credit. A theory should be accepted only when the null hypothesis is more improbable.
    - crimsonalucard 12y ago
      keywords: "seems improbable" Just because something SEEMS improbable doesn't actually mean it IS improbable.
      - gjem97 12y ago
        When the probability describes the likelihood of our data matching a particular theory, there is only "seems improbable". E.g. it seems improbable that there are other yet undetected Pluto-sized objects in the solar system. Is it improbable? No, it's either true that there are such objects or not. As opposed to events that have not occurred. E.g. it seems improbable that ten flips of a fair coin will yield ten heads. Is it improbable? Yes by most definitions of improbable, it is improbable.
    - kaybe 12y ago
      However, this requires actually looking at the data and the conclusions drawn from them and not just the conclusions. In many cases, this is not done at the beginning.
sampo 12y ago
> I cannot count the amount of times I've read about scientists in the past getting ridiculed for some "crackpot" theory only to be vindicated later. A famous example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
tjradcliffe 12y ago
> I cannot count the amount of times I've read about scientists in the past getting ridiculed for some "crackpot" theory only to be vindicated later. I can, and it is a much, much smaller number than either: 1) a theory was widely accepted because "it just made sense" and turned out to be false (bloodletting, Aristotle's physics, caloric, aether, bad air causing disease...) or 2) a theory being ridiculed and it turning out to be nonsense (n-rays, Cartesian vortices, cold fusion...) Take-home: the initial plausibility of any theory will vary widely between people (plausibility is subjective, probability is objective). But as evidence accumulates the beliefs of all good Bayesians will converge. Ergo: initial plausibility isn't the least bit interesting. Validation by systematic observation, controlled experiment, and/or Bayesian inference is. So bringing up initial plausibility--in either direction--is not so interesting, except in the case (as in this one) where a nearly infinite number of theories have almost identical initial plausibility, because we know with as much certainty as we know anything that air travel is incredibly safe, so failures are necessarily due to bizarre low-probability anomalies. Under those circumstances, anyone who promotes their particular theory as vastly more plausible than any of the equally implausible alternatives is necessarily nuts: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1364 http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1364
- crimsonalucard 12y ago
  Implausible theories direct the course of systematic validation. Searches and studies are conducted entirely based on theories which all start out with high initial implausibility. The issue with this plane crash is that most theories from the investigators have a plausibility level that has barely changed from the initial level. This is why it is worth considering to a certain extent some of the more non-mainstream theories.
david-given 12y ago
> I cannot count the amount of times I've read about scientists in the past getting ridiculed for some "crackpot" theory only to be vindicated later. "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan

tbabb 12y ago

> I cannot count the amount of times I've read about scientists in the past getting ridiculed for some "crackpot" theory only to be vindicated later. People love to point to underdog scientists who were later "vindicated" and then compare their own pet theories to them. 1) That's incredibly arrogant. 2) That disregards the 10^n other theories that are discredited correctly every day. 3) The scientists who "nobody believed" were right because they did an incredible amount of very careful, thorough research which bolstered their case well past the point where it could be ignored. They weren't wild hunches. > published by the New Yorker New York Magazine. Big difference there.

crimsonalucard 12y ago
Lets make it clear. I'm not vindicating his theory I'm saying it's equally ignorant to not consider a theory because it just seems improbable.
- tbabb 12y ago
  A theory being improbable is probably the best reason not to give it credit. A theory should be accepted only when the null hypothesis is more improbable.
  - crimsonalucard 12y ago
    keywords: "seems improbable" Just because something SEEMS improbable doesn't actually mean it IS improbable.
    - gjem97 12y ago
      When the probability describes the likelihood of our data matching a particular theory, there is only "seems improbable". E.g. it seems improbable that there are other yet undetected Pluto-sized objects in the solar system. Is it improbable? No, it's either true that there are such objects or not. As opposed to events that have not occurred. E.g. it seems improbable that ten flips of a fair coin will yield ten heads. Is it improbable? Yes by most definitions of improbable, it is improbable.
  - kaybe 12y ago
    However, this requires actually looking at the data and the conclusions drawn from them and not just the conclusions. In many cases, this is not done at the beginning.

sampo 12y ago

> I cannot count the amount of times I've read about scientists in the past getting ridiculed for some "crackpot" theory only to be vindicated later. A famous example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

tjradcliffe 12y ago

> I cannot count the amount of times I've read about scientists in the past getting ridiculed for some "crackpot" theory only to be vindicated later. I can, and it is a much, much smaller number than either: 1) a theory was widely accepted because "it just made sense" and turned out to be false (bloodletting, Aristotle's physics, caloric, aether, bad air causing disease...) or 2) a theory being ridiculed and it turning out to be nonsense (n-rays, Cartesian vortices, cold fusion...) Take-home: the initial plausibility of any theory will vary widely between people (plausibility is subjective, probability is objective). But as evidence accumulates the beliefs of all good Bayesians will converge. Ergo: initial plausibility isn't the least bit interesting. Validation by systematic observation, controlled experiment, and/or Bayesian inference is. So bringing up initial plausibility--in either direction--is not so interesting, except in the case (as in this one) where a nearly infinite number of theories have almost identical initial plausibility, because we know with as much certainty as we know anything that air travel is incredibly safe, so failures are necessarily due to bizarre low-probability anomalies. Under those circumstances, anyone who promotes their particular theory as vastly more plausible than any of the equally implausible alternatives is necessarily nuts: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1364 http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1364

crimsonalucard 12y ago
Implausible theories direct the course of systematic validation. Searches and studies are conducted entirely based on theories which all start out with high initial implausibility. The issue with this plane crash is that most theories from the investigators have a plausibility level that has barely changed from the initial level. This is why it is worth considering to a certain extent some of the more non-mainstream theories.

david-given 12y ago

> I cannot count the amount of times I've read about scientists in the past getting ridiculed for some "crackpot" theory only to be vindicated later. "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan