Hal. Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) Are scientists afraid to give their opinions in science because they don't want to be seen to go against the ' knowledgeable ' crowd ? Is this preventing the exploration of new idea's ? This is an open thread but it may be better if the ' usual suspects ' kept their opinions to themselves . I will not reply to any poster who has previously engaged in disputed discussion with me . Edited April 20, 2011 by hal_2011 -9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 So this thread is only for those who wish to agree with each other? Sounds boring. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Scientists shouldn't give their opinions in scientific discussion with the belief that opinions have any basis. Scientists engaging in scientific discussion should concern themselves with evidence, facts, and sometimes speculations. None of these has much to do with opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal. Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 This thread is not only for those who wish to agree with each other . It is for everybody who wants to make a post . I will not discuss anything with the ' usual suspects '. -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 what evidence is there that there isnt a teapot orbiting in an elliptical orbit between earth and mars? in most peoples opinion there isnt one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal. Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 Granpa , do you have evidence that there isn't ? In a few peoples opinions then is there one ? -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 "Rocking the boat" happens all the time. Go to most any scientific conference -- scientists present things no one else has ever seen before all the time. What doesn't happen is that the presenters just stand up and start telling a story. They present something new, and then provide evidence in the form of simulation or experiment or both to show why they think what they think. Presenting new things is pretty much the whole reason conferences exist, actually. But, scientists present new ideas that follow the scientific method. That's what makes them scientists instead of fiction writers. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keelanz Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 cowoby's of truth can only rock the boat, now conform or get shot kid!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 The best way to get famous as a scientist is to rock the boat. You don't get acknowledged for "obvious" discoveries. The main issue here is that rocking the boat should be accompanied by proper evidence, else the rocker is discovered to be a fool. If you can substantiate your statements, you're golden. As a future physicist myself, I can't wait for someone (me or someone else) to rock the boat and discover something new. That will give me a whole lot more to research, and open the opportunity to be pioneers in new discoveries. ~mooey This is an open thread but it may be better if the ' usual suspects ' kept their opinions to themselves . I will not reply to any poster who has previously engaged in disputed discussion with me . You don't get to decide who's allowed to participate in threads, hal_2011. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan.27s_experiment_and_cargo_cult_science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 This is an open thread but it may be better if the ' usual suspects ' kept their opinions to themselves . I will not reply to any poster who has previously engaged in disputed discussion with me . ! Moderator Note That's not going to fly. if you don't like being contradicted, perhaps you should re-evaluate your motivation for posting at a science site 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keelanz Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Are scientists afraid to give their opinions in science because they don't want to be seen to go against the ' knowledgeable ' crowd ? Is this preventing the exploration of new idea's ? This is an open thread but it may be better if the ' usual suspects ' kept their opinions to themselves . I will not reply to any poster who has previously engaged in disputed discussion with me . i think you'll find science works in a similar way to religion, if i wanted to create my own religion right now it wouldnt be worth anything to anybody (other than you guys who would throw yourself off a bridge for me i know) however if i was to go and study all the different religions of the world and then try and create something from all of them, more people will be not only willing to listen but to believe. Science is much the same, you have to understand firstly everything about the boat your trying to rock, its size/max speed/max capacity etc once you have a solid grasp maybe then someone may be willing to listen not always though, regardless alot of scientists wont revolt against theories they are being taught because they have to take the theory's as fact or else science itself would be useless. its all just one big illusion but the philosophers cant explain to the physicists and the physicists try to prove the illusion is truth & the masses dont care either way. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rktpro Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) Are scientists afraid to give their opinions in science because they don't want to be seen to go against the ' knowledgeable ' crowd ? Is this preventing the exploration of new idea's ? This is an open thread but it may be better if the ' usual suspects ' kept their opinions to themselves . I will not reply to any poster who has previously engaged in disputed discussion with me . Obviously not. Those who dedicate themselves to Science will accept every fault of their theory as readily as they accept its fair points. Ideas are floating constantly. It was a situation during the BC times when someone who stood against the knowledgeable person was beheaded. Now, with the end of open crimes against humanity and crimes against science, people have become active and feel free. The + and - points given to certain posts really makes this thread colourful. Edited April 20, 2011 by rktpro 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keelanz Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) Obviously not. Those who dedicate themselves to Science will accept every fault of their theory as readily as they accept its fair points. Ideas are floating constantly. It was a situation during the BC times when someone who stood against the knowledgeable person was beheaded. Now, with the end of open crimes against humanity and crimes against science, people have become active and feel free. The + and - points given to certain posts really makes this thread colourful. no i kinda agree with hal, scientists and the religious are the same, they sometimes hold their own truth above reality such that a new theory or idea could breath new life into new areas of science but is blindly refuted by scientists because past theory's constrain its progression, im not sure if hal is an r*tard or what but people are hating on him quite alot, maybe hes just misunderstood? TROLOLOLOL like i mean i dont think scientists are so ready to take on new idea's, well not idea's that contradict what is, they will accept new idea's that help prove or aid what is ... like quantum mechanics TROLOLOLOL Edited April 20, 2011 by keelanz -6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc. Josh Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Science is "PROOF" And this forum is GREAT because when you think of a theory you come here, post and let people who are "SPECIALIST" read your post and disect it with great Precision. That way if you are on to somthing they help you fill in the missing holes. No scientist that i know has had a theory and first time was correct and accepted. These diverse discussions and topics are not just blabber instead these are the principals of life and what people have dedicated themselfs to for a very long time. And constructive criticism is a tool, so take it as a tool and learn, dont be disgruntled. Regards,Josh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 im not sure if hal is an r*tard or what but people are hating on him quite alot, maybe hes just misunderstood? TROLOLOLOL ! Moderator Note Personal attacks don't fly, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Are scientists afraid to give their opinions in science because they don't want to be seen to go against the ' knowledgeable ' crowd ? Scientists are human. Human's do have fears of security, including job security. Any junior scientist will therefore be careful to challenge current consensus only when they have solid evidence to support that challenge. They will also understand that a solid challenge can best arise from a solid understanding of the current consensus view, its strengths and its weaknesses. The true geniuses, the brilliant, original minds, may arrive at this solid understanding early and raise their challenges early. The average, mundane scientist will likely recognise that their contributions will be additive to knowledge, filling in the detail, but not revolutionary in scope. They will choose not to challenge the 'knowledgeable crowd' because they know they have no challenge worth raising. Both class of scientist is important to the advance of scientific knowledge and both are practicing good science. So, the short answer to your question is No. Is this preventing the exploration of new idea's ? People are attracted to science largely because they are fascinated by new ideas. Discussion of new ideas permeates most aspects of their working day and probably even more of their off time when in the company of other scientists. I imagine it is rather difficult to get a research grant to investigate an old idea. You don't seem to have considered that. This is an open thread but it may be better if the ' usual suspects ' kept their opinions to themselves .You appear to be practicing what you are accusing the 'scientific establishment' of practicing: a form of censorship of discussion. Do you think that it rather ironic? I will not reply to any poster who has previously engaged in disputed discussion with me . I have no idea if I fall into that category. I focus on what people write here, not who they are. However, your restriction is laughable, as has been pointed out by several others. If you are arguing for open discussion, then put your money where your mouth is and discuss: frankly, openly, with all comers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) I believe that scientists generally hope to make ground-breaking discoveries, but I think there is some validity in Kuhn's notion that there are certain paradigmatic foundations and that people invested in working within a certain paradigm don't feel as warm toward 'boat-rocking' work that could pose a potential threat to their favored paradigm(s) as they would to work that generates ground-breaking knowledge that doesn't seem to pose a threat. In other words, I think many scientists have the personal attitude of "live and let live" where paradigms/disciplines are concerned. If you start presenting research that has clear undermining potential to others' work, it will create controversy and some people will allow their personal interests to interfere with them constructively criticizing what you're doing to strengthen it. Also, I think there is jealousy in academic science where people think younger researchers should "pay their dues" by doing not-so-flashy research and leave the really ground-breaking projects to people who have earned the right to fame and fortune. They will say that the reason for this is that more experienced researchers are in a better position to do more radical work because they know their subjects more thoroughly and intimately, but why shouldn't less experienced researchers learn by charting radical trajectories and rigorously documenting what they learn from doing so? That might make them seem cavalier on a personal level, but isn't part of science supposed to be that you don't allow personal feelings and interests to bias your critical abilities? Edited April 20, 2011 by lemur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edtharan Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Are scientists afraid to give their opinions in science because they don't want to be seen to go against the ' knowledgeable ' crowd ? Is this preventing the exploration of new idea's ? I would say it is the exact opposite. Scientists want desperately to overturn what is currently "known". A scientists that spends their career just saying "There is nothing new to be discovered" is a bit like a newspaper printing a single page saying "No News Today". Both would not last long. The scientific method works on "disproof". That is scientists take we we think of as being true , and then dries to disprove it. In other words, they are constantly trying to "rock the boat" and it is only through rocking the boat that scientists get employed. Of course, there is popular media like movies and TV shows that portray scientists as know it alls and unwilling to change. But, if you are basing your view of scientist based on fictional media, then you are going to have the wrong impression. The other thing is that some people think that just because something sounds like to should be true, then it must be true. Then when someone show them that their wishful thinking is just wishful thinking, they tend to react badly to it and make out that the person who showed them they were wrong is the one at fault because they can't see that because something that sounds like to should be true is not actually true. What these types of people don't understand is that reality trumps all, and that Humans did not evolve to understand the fundamental way the universe works. We evolved to not get eaten by predators, to eat our prey and to make more of us. These require some understanding of how the universe works on some level, but only an approximation is needed. So what sounds like it should be true is not necessarily true because out intuition is based around being able to eat, not getting eaten and making more humans than the next couple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Are scientists afraid to give their opinions in science because they don't want to be seen to go against the ' knowledgeable ' crowd ? Is this preventing the exploration of new idea's ? I would say that you have to be sure that the boat is worth rocking. That is you want to be fairly sure your work is correct before shouting about it. Of course mistakes can be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 I would say that you have to be sure that the boat is worth rocking. That is you want to be fairly sure your work is correct before shouting about it. Of course mistakes can be made. Maybe this attitude adds inertia to conservative science. Probably, objectivity should dictate that people be fairly sure about established ideas as well before shouting about those, but how many people get swept up in the choir of popular paradigms and theories just because they have gained ground and popularity? Granted, such popularity is probably at least partially due to the passing of various critical scrutiny but that doesn't mean that people don't get drawn into the safety of standing on the shoulders of giants without themselves first thoroughly questioning those giants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 Maybe this attitude adds inertia to conservative science. Probably, objectivity should dictate that people be fairly sure about established ideas as well before shouting about those, but how many people get swept up in the choir of popular paradigms and theories just because they have gained ground and popularity? Granted, such popularity is probably at least partially due to the passing of various critical scrutiny but that doesn't mean that people don't get drawn into the safety of standing on the shoulders of giants without themselves first thoroughly questioning those giants. To each his own of course, but I feel that for me to thoroughly question those giants would be a waste of effort. The chances of me uncovering a flaw made by a top person in his field (that also was not uncovered by anyone else) are indeed slim. I am very comfortable accepting established science without scrutinizing its validity myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 (edited) To each his own of course, but I feel that for me to thoroughly question those giants would be a waste of effort. The chances of me uncovering a flaw made by a top person in his field (that also was not uncovered by anyone else) are indeed slim. I am very comfortable accepting established science without scrutinizing its validity myself. Fine, but the point is that scientists who have this attitude are indeed influenced to avoid "rocking the boat" as the thread title asks. They cower in the shadow of giants because they understand the magnitude of their work. Edited April 22, 2011 by lemur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 (edited) Newton is about as big a giant as there is and even he said that "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." What would have happened if Dr Einstein had decided not to rock the boat because he didnt want to question Newton? I fear that some scientists have become more equal than others. Edited April 22, 2011 by granpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now