On Aug 11, 12:23Â pm, "Painius"
maol.com> wrote:>> On Aug 9, 6:59 pm, "Painius"
maol.com> wrote:>
>>> . . .
>>> Now back to the subject of the "correctness" of voting
>>> on a scientific theory. Shall we go back in time to the
>>> first few years of Einstein's theory of relativity? Back
>>> before the evidence in favor of the theory began to
>>> mount, were there not some scientists who agreed
>>> with the theory and a huge number of physicists who
>>> thought it was humbug? Is this not an example of the
>>> scientific community itself "voting" a theory "in" or
>>> "out"?
>
> Thank you, PD, for a highly informative article! Â If i were
> arrogant enough to see myself as your prof., i would give
> you a "B+". Â Your article is excellent at describing reality in
> much the same way many scientific theories describe it
> without actually getting to the root of the challenge. Â You
> would get an "A" if you had been able to describe reality as
> well as you did, without resorting to semantics to circumvent
> the reality itself...
>
>> Not really, no. None of the people who pursued the theory had any
>> evidence that the theory was correct, and they knew it. But they
>> thought it was worth pursuing, and so they started to incorporate it
>> into their own work, to see how it would play out. The task of
>> theoretical physicists is to produce testable predictions to see
>> whether a theory has merit, as decided by experimental measurements.
>> The development of those predictions is *always* a provisional gamble
>> that a theory might have merit.
>
>> Those people who pursued relativity thought there was sufficient
>> promise in relativity that it was worth developing it into a few more
>> testable predictions.
>
> Here, for example, PD, you begin with "Not really, no,"
> and then you go on to describe those who "voted yea"
> based on a gut feeling rather than evidence. Â I suppose
> Sir Eddington fits this bill. Â He felt so strongly about the
> theory that he conducted the famous expedition to the
> isle of PrÃncipe near Africa to watch the solar eclipse of
> May 29, 1919. Â If, however, Einstein's light bending in
> a huge gravity well had not been observed, Eddington
> most likely would have then voted nay.
And this speaks to the central point. Eddington did not do the
experiment because he thought the theory was right. He thought that it
was important *to find out*. What he recognized was that the theory
had broad implications *if correct*, and so it was important to test
it. Had the experiment gone the other way, it would have been just
important for nature to say, no, this isn't what's going on.
>
>> Those people who did not pursue it though it was
>> a poor gamble and put their priorities on chasing other possibilities.
>
> And there were many good and great physicists of the
> time who voted nay from the getgo. Â Eddington's efforts
> did not go unrewarded, though. Â While the position of
> the star was not quite where relativity predicted, and
> while Eddington's observations were of poor quality
> compared to later confirmations, he still managed to
> turn the votes of most astronomers of his day.
>
> And yet, until those future confirmations, there were
> still some naysayers (nay voters) among physicists.
> Some felt that simultaneous observations at Sobral,
> Brazil appeared to be closer to the Newtonian model.
>
>
>
>>> What is the purpose of "peer review", if not for other
>>> scientists to read the work of a colleague and decide
>>> for themselves if the idea has merit? Is this not also
>>> a form of "voting"?
>
>> No, not really again. The purpose of peer review is not to judge the
>> merit of the idea, but to check the quality of the methodology that
>> produced the idea. For a theoretical idea, the kinds of checks that
>> are done are: "Is this in direct conflict with experimental evidence
>> that the author was perhaps unaware of?" "Is there a math error
>> somewhere?" "Is there a rather weak assumption that is not explicitly
>> discussed in the paper as an assumption?" "Is the quoted uncertainty
>> in the prediction consistent with understood uncertainties in the
>> inputs or in the calculation?" For experimental papers, the kinds of
>> checks are: "Are all the sources of experimental error accounted for?"
>> "Is the experimental design going to produce the kind of sensitivity
>> advertised?" "Has the analysis of the data been done properly?"
>
> Thank you, PD, for clarifying this important distinction.
> And yet it still boils down to a type of voting process.
> Your semantics is not enough to spoil the fact that by
> making assessments/judgments of specific parameters
> of the idea, one is still ultimately judging the merits of
> the idea.
>
>>> And this is yet another reason that i consider it to be
>>> shameful that the stupidity of arrogance appears to
>>> reign supreme in some of the members of these
>>> science newsgroups!
>
>> I think the chief complaint of "some of the members of these science
>> newsgroups" is  the confusion between critiquing the idea and
>> critiquing the methodology used to arrive at the idea. The way to
>> recognize a crank is that they:
>> - didn't know the questions above need to be answered
>
> I must disagree. Â Ignorance is not necessarily a
> sure sign of crank or kook behavior. Â Perhaps this
> is the main source of arrogance? Â If so, then i say
> the arrogance is founded upon pillars of sand.
I'm not speaking about scientific ignorance. I'm speaking of ignorance
about what science IS and what the scientific method is. This is
supposed to be something that every school child gets training on from
the 7th grade onward. But you're right, not having absorbed this is
certainly forgivable. However, what often happens is that the crank
will take the time to try to develop a whole new "theory" without
first understanding what the role of a theory in science is, and how
it is validated, and what benchmarks even a viable (let alone correct)
theory must pass. This is not only ignorant, but presumptuous, and the
latter is less forgivable where the former is more.
Again, the issue is not at all about asking questions. It is about
someone putting something forward as a purported theory that meets
none of the criteria of a more-than-half-baked idea.
>
> To automatically assume that someone who asks
> questions, however odd or silly sounding, is a
> crank without a solid foundation and history is, to
> me, a sign that somebody ought to know better!
>
>> - know that the questions have to be answered but refuse to do the
>> work
>
> Many of the people who read these science groups
> are not scientists, and therefore not qualified nor
> equipped to "do the work".
I agree, though if they are interested, they are *certainly* equipped
to find out what's involved in doing the work. And then it's a simple
matter of making the decision whether the effort is worthwhile. An
honest hobbyist will dabble but will recognize that it is nothing more
than dabbling. A dishonest crank will dabble but will insist that it
is more than dabbling, though they've neither done the work, nor
investigated what the nature of the work is, or even acknowledged that
the work is necessary.
>Â If scientists hold this
> against inquisitive newcomers, then they ought not.
> Either science has already done the work and the
> newcomer can be directed to a FAQ, or more work
> is needed and the newcomer can be apprised of that
> fact. Â Arrogance and the calling of names is waaaaay
> beneath this process, for any reason!
And once more, the issue is not inquisitiveness, but how it is put
forward -- as a question, or as a pretense of a theory?
>
>> - think that they know the answer to those questions but upon a
>> moment's inspection, it's plain that they don't
>
> And calling the inquisitive newcomer "stupid" and a
> "fucking idiot" is supposed to help change his or her
> mind? Â Such shit-for-brains arrogance only serves to
> put the name-caller (AND SCIENCE) in a very bad
> light. Â There is no plausible, real justification for such
> vicious and near-criminal behavior on the part of the
> oldtimers!
You will find this to be a relatively rare response to those who are
asking a *question*. However, many of the people are putting forward
claims of well-developed ideas that aren't well-developed at all, and
they've been doing that for a long time, and they have no intention of
acknowledging what is necessary to develop it properly. These people
are indeed worthy of very harsh criticism. They are a poison to
science.
>
>> - think that science imposes the requirement to answer these questions
>> to suppress the ideas of outsiders
>
> I'm sure this is true in some cases, and nobody ought
> to be surprised when newcomers express this belief,
> if unenlightened arrogance continues on the part of
> the oldtimers. Â Some of these posters have been so
> greatly respected in the past. Â They have been thru
> countless battles with trollers and pseudoscience
> kooks. Â And yet, such jaded and callous responses of
> degradation and name-calling means to me that the
> ones who perpetrate them should get the fuck outta
> Dodge!...
>
> for awhile, at least, until their unfounded and idiotic
> assumptions about newcomers are reformed, and
> their love for science and the education of inquisitive
> fellow human minds is renewed, restimulated and
> restored!
>
> Thank you again, PD, for your post. Â I hope it gets
> widely read and understood!
>
> happy days and...
> Â Â starry starry nights!
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine Ellsworth
>
> P.S.: Â Thank YOU for reading!
>
> P.P.S.: Â
http://painellsworth.net
