[ydoaPs]

“Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.”– Robert Park

[md65536]

HaydenHatTrick, on 28 August 2010 - 10:54 AM, said:

Yes people can still make MASSIVE discoveries alone, and come up with very analytical and complex understandings of what ever it is they're working on.
Also, some people don't tell their peers everything because people like to steal idea.

I agree. Another aspect is that often when individuals share their ideas with others, they feel that others don't "get" their ideas. Individuals outside of the mainstream are often unable to express their ideas clearly and understandably. Ideally an individual would work with others to educate their self on how to express the idea scientifically, while also sharing smaller parts of their idea to get help validating or developing the theory (rather than trying to convince others that the entire thing is correct). Instead what happens is the individual feels that their idea is more important than learning about existing stuff, so they focus on it while avoiding learning how it's been done before, AND they feel ostracized by those they shared their ideas with. So they want to work in isolation until they can present their idea in a way that will convincingly prove to others that they're right.

That has been my experience as a crackpot, at least.

Not all new and good ideas require difficult math or a thorough understanding of a field, but such ideas are probably exceedingly rare. There is a natural tendency, when working on a new idea, to assume that it's never been thought of and that it's immensely important. So crackpots "appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance". I think it's the same type of belief that a very rare situation applies to oneself, that many lottery players feel.

Just the Facts, on 6 January 2011 - 06:42 PM, said:

I'm starting to feel like Galileo, and this place is the catholic church.

Out of curiosity, have you calculated your crackpot index? http://math.ucr.edu/...z/crackpot.html

"35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on."


Not that the index is authoritative, or that a high score means anything, but that's a lot of points you racked up right there!

Sometimes crackpots are right. I find it valuable to try to avoid typical crackpot "mistakes" and other quirks that make it easier for others to not take you seriously. Historically, if the church would execute you for your ideas, you work on them in secret... which nowadays means hiding crackpot behavior.

[Time Mechanics]

Newton was a huge fan of pseudoscience because it gave him ideas. The mark of an intellectual is shown by their ability to keep an open mind.

With that in mind there are people out there just trying to scam others, so remember to use your head.

[DrRocket]

fafalone, on 7 March 2003 - 04:43 PM, said:

From http://chronicle.com...21/21b02001.htm

Something is probably bull if:

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.

One notorious example is the claim made in 1989 by two chemists from the University of Utah, B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, that they had discovered cold fusion -- a way to produce nuclear fusion without expensive equipment. Scientists did not learn of the claim until they read reports of a news conference. Moreover, the announcement dealt largely with the economic potential of the discovery and was devoid of the sort of details that might have enabled other scientists to judge the strength of the claim or to repeat the experiment.

Not a good example for the, valid, point that you are trying to make.

Pons and Fleischmann were legitimate chemists in a very fine chemistry department. They were operating WAY out of their depth. But while their science was bad their intentions were good.

The hasty public announcement of their (erroneous) results was made at the urging of university lawyers who were concerned about priority, patent rights, and future royalties. It was quite obviously a bad idea, but the motivation had nothing to do with any desire on the part of the scientists to avoid peer review.

This particular blunder was not the result of the usual wacko taking his "theory" to a public venue because either he has been turned down in scientific circles or because he is ignorant of scientific journals and the peer-review process. Other schools also quickly followed suit and took awing at the "tar baby". The driving factor in all cases seems to be institutional greed, not an attempt by scientists to avoid peer review.

Your fundamental point is a good one. The example chosen is not a good illustration.

This might serve better: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=OLUUCeAqOxs

[dalemiller]

HaydenHatTrick, on 28 August 2010 - 10:54 AM, said:

I'm going to have to disagree with every single point in the original post. Neglecting the science behind anything just because of those things, is rather silly... Yes people can still make MASSIVE discoveries alone, and come up with very analytical and complex understandings of what ever it is they're working on.
Also, some people don't tell their peers everything because people like to steal idea.
Thirdly, there are powerful people suppressing science. Science is still VERY censored today.
There ARE natural things that occur in the treatment of things such as cancer, that science can't explain. If science could explain everything... Then it would stop. Look a broccoli, I could have told you that it helps prevent and cure cancer to some degree when I was a child, it's only recently science has been able to prove that it dose, now they are researching the function.
Lastly, when someone takes something to the media before running over real scientists, who are these "real scientists". I'm sure the people in the team don't feel the need to be explaining how there new idea works to people they don't know.
Lastly, media exposure could be because people get impatient and want to see the technology grow...
I could go on.

I salute your contribution. A loner has to bust his butt to prepare his message for peer review and can then be refused critique or any satisfaction. I know of a case where a contrary theory had just previously been acclaimed by the peer-review journal: They already had a dog in the race and that was just crapola! Mere limitation of resources can explain a lot of omissions. A single error presumed or contained can make most anything wrong or look wrong, but if that always puts the whole bundle asunder as pseudoscience, then we would all be in the monkey-house. Should peer reviews precede offerings to a scientific forum?

fafalone, on 7 March 2003 - 04:43 PM, said:

From http://chronicle.com...21/21b02001.htm


Something is probably bull if:


6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.

Let me get this straight. You are demonstrating the validity of your point by explaining that many people do more work than fewer people, and that it is hard to find geniuses hiding out in their attics. It does not take a genius to know that if you hide out in your attic you will be hard to find: That must be the whole idea of hiding anywhere! But why should you suppose that that is what they do? Who is ever going to even look for geniuses hiding in attics?

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

Please, you can open the topicthat is closed and has no discussion. The topic is called "Unification of the 4 fundamental forces nature".

I beg you to open the item. Thank you very much for meeting me.

Very affectionate,
Victor Elias Espinoza Guedez

This post has been edited by Victor Elias Espinoza G.: 3 August 2011 - 08:01 PM

[superball]

"How did they do that? with smoke and mirrors, flashy cards, and lots, and lots of assertion."

Cheers, its time for tea...

This post has been edited by superball: 20 November 2011 - 10:38 PM

[Doughnut]

One man's scientific orthodoxy is another man's pseudoscience. The (social-Darwinist and Eugenicist) science of Galton and Pearson was considered cutting-edge in its day.

[Klaynos]

Doughnut, on 26 January 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

One man's scientific orthodoxy is another man's pseudoscience. The (social-Darwinist and Eugenicist) science of Galton and Pearson was considered cutting-edge in its day.

Read up on the scientific method. Or if you're in the UK turn on radio 4 right now... or listen to todays "In our time" on iplayer.

[Doughnut]

Mmm... understood.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

A reminder that this is not the place to post your own (or repeat someone else's) pet theory. Open up a new thread in the speculations forum.

[z9999GhZbRaiNzZ89]

it's kind of like proving stuff in court imo.

This post has been edited by z9999GhZbRaiNzZ89: 19 April 2012 - 04:56 PM