Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: PHYS-L Digest - 1 Oct 2001 - Special issue (#2001-375)



The hard part about science for most people seems to me to be that we
are always working with partial knowledge. In the cases mentioned below
of those enamored of the maverick ideas in science they want science to
get it 'right' or be 'truth'. Forever. With no changes. On the other
hand, many other people seem to think that since scientific process
sometimes goes down a wrong path that it is no better than anyone else's
opinion. People dismiss new medical research results all the time saying
things like "Oh they are always finding something else and then proving
it is wrong later on." News reporters are often bad about this, giving
equal billing to crack pots and non mainstream opinions under the rubric
of giving a 'balanced' view.

Neither view it seems to me takes into account the fact that it is
perfectly rational to go with (accept as provisionally true) the best
information at hand even when we know someday we may have (even expect
to have) better information. The 'dinosaurs' were quite reasonable to
hold onto the old ideas until there was enough evidence for the new
ones. It was very reasonable to set up tests of cold fusion to see if it
was a viable idea (we should only fault those who continue to believe
after conclusive evidence to the contrary is found). If history is any
indication at all we should never be surprised to see substantial
changes in what is accepted by the mainstream and found in the physics
books as time goes on. Science knowledge isn't static (fortunately for
us!)


kyle

Subject: Re: how science works
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:01:45 -0500
From: "RAUBER, JOEL" <JOEL_RAUBER@SDSTATE.EDU>

(soap-box mode on)

I'm rather glad that Bernard mentioned N-rays. I think folks, particularly
the lay-folks tend to over-emphasize the progress of maverick new ideas. By
pointing to Einstein and many others. One tends to forget that being a
maverick idea opposed to the opinion of the "dinosaurs" is not proof of
correctness and that most maverick crazy ideas are just that, crazy. We
tend to not know about all the wrong crazy ideas as they are lost from
having been corrected by the sieve of skepticism.

(soap-box mode off)

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernard Cleyet [mailto:anngeorg@PACBELL.NET]
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 1:34 PM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: how science works


For those of you who haven't heard of "N rays", I recommend:
http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html

Here's an example of the failure of skepticism! Probably
caused by the
well known character of the French, chauvinism.

bc half French, who thinks he's not a chauvinist.

William Beaty wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Richard Hake wrote:

Yes, as Debbie says "science works through lots of
bickering," so a=
s
to finally arrive at a "community map." In Hake (2001a), I give a
capsule description of the "scientific method" as
practiced by most
research scientists (rather than "as typically presented"):

I think it goes much further than that. There is a vast difference
between asking for evidence versus derision and ridicule, between
scientific skepticism versus irrational disbelief.
Scientists are hu=
man
beings, and the problem of irrational disbelief is well
known by many
scientists, if not by the textbook authors:=20

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing
its opponent=
s and
making them see the light, but rather because its
opponents eventu=
ally
die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with
it." - Pl=
anck

"Science advances funeral by funeral."=20

Skepticism is a very necessary component of science. I
define skepti=
cism
as "refusing to accept new discoveries without proof." Irrational
disbelief is different, it leads to emotional attacks on
new discover=
ies,
including attempts to silence the voices of the
discoverers, as well =
as
emotional attacks in peer review which can halt funding of the
replications that would validate the new discoveries. If
someone say=
s
"OK, prove it", that's skepticism. If someone says "I
don't care how
strong your evidence is, the very idea is ridiculous" ...that's NOT
skepticism.=20

Here's something scary. Are you aware of the common
findings of anal=
yzers
of accidents, where each full-blown accident is often found
to be par=
t of
a group of close calls and ongoing unsafe practices? What
if the sam=
e is
true of revolutionary ideas in science? What if the
almost-suppresse=
d
discoveries are just the visible part of a larger problem?
The works=
of
McClintlock and Wegner (and Ahrrenius' ions, and
Chandrasekhar's blac=
k
holes, and Gold's deep rock bacteria) were almost lost
because of the=
very
strong negative reaction of the scientific community. This
suggests =
that
it's quite possible that some revolutionary discoveries
WERE complete=
ly
lost. Note that with this kind of "science accident", only the near
misses could ever be visible.

Some quotes about how science actually works:

"Perhaps the only thing that saves science from invalid
conventional
wisdom that becomes effectively permanent is the presence
of maveri=
cks
in every generation - people who keep challenging convention and
thinking up new ideas for the sheer hell of it or from an innate
contrariness." - D. Raup, Paleontologist

"It is as fatal as it is cowardly to blink facts because
they are no=
t to
our taste." - John Tyndall

"Whenever the established ideas are accepted uncritically, but=20
conflicting new evidence is brushed aside and not
reported because =
it
does not fit, then that particular science is in deep trouble"
- Dr. T. Gold

"New ideas are always criticized - not because an idea
lacks merit, =
but
because it might turn out to be workable, which would threaten the
reputations of many people whose opinions conflict with
it. Some p=
eople
may even lose their jobs." - physicist, requested anonymity

"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but
conservat=
ive
scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they
start with th=
e
preconceived idea that what they are investigating is
impossible. =
When
this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their
prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead
of them."=
=20
- Arthur C. Clarke, 1963

"We must care to think about the unthinkable things,
because when th=
ings
become unthinkable, thinking stops and action becomes mindless."
=A0=A0 - James W. Fulbright

"Sit down before facts like a child, and be prepared to
give up eve=
ry
preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to
whatever abysse=
s
Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." - T.H. Huxley

"Biologists can be just as sensitive to heresy as theologians."
- H.G. Wells

"The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes
a strange=
=20
protein and resists it with similar energy. It would not
perhaps b=
e=20
too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly
acting anti=
gen=20
known to science." - Wilfred Trotter

"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not
by the fal=
se
appearance of things present and which mislead into
error, not dire=
ctly
by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived
opinion, b=
y
prejudice." - Schopenhauer

"...By far the most usual way of handling phenomena so
novel that t=
hey
would make for a serious rearrangement of our
preconceptions is to
ignore them altogether, or to abuse those who bear
witness for the=
m."
- William James

"If I want to stop a research program I can always do it
by getting =
a few=20
experts to sit in on the subject, because they know right
away that=
it=20
was a fool thing to try in the first place." - Charles
Kettering, G=
M

"If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it
through to you=
.
You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense
is ruling=
the
world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.)
But every n=
ow
and then, a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid
and wonderf=
ul.
If you are too much in the habit of being skeptical about
everythin=
g,
you are going to miss or resent it, and either way you
will be stan=
ding=20
in the way of understanding and progress. " - Carl Sagan

"It's like religion. Heresy [in science] is thought of as
a bad thi=
ng,
whereas it should be just the opposite." - Dr. Thomas Gold

"I believe there is no source of deception in the investigation of
nature which can compare with a fixed belief that certain kinds of
phenomena are IMPOSSIBLE." -William James

"There is nothing particularly scientific about excessive caution.
Science thrives on daring generalizations." - L. Hogben

"Let the mind be enlarged... to the grandeur of the
mysteries, and n=
ot=20
the mysteries contracted to the narrowness of the mind" -
Francis B=
acon

"It would seem to me... an offense against nature, for us
to come on=
the
same scene endowed as we are with the curiosity, filled
to overbrim=
ming
as we are with questions, and naturally talented as we are for the
asking of clear questions, and then for us to do nothing about, or
worse, to try to suppress the questions..." -Lewis Thomas

Also see:

NEW IDEAS IN SCIENCE, T. Gold
http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/newidea1.html

((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) )
)))))))))))))))=
))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE
HOBBYIST we=
bsite
billb@eskimo.com
http://www.amasci.c=
om
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects,
tesla, weird sc=
ience
Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 freenrg-L taoshum-L
vortex-L webh=
ead-L


-------------------------------------------------------------