The conservative nature of science: beneficial or hindering?

[DJEN]

Science is known for its conservative nature. It doesn't allow new theories to settle until they're compatible to the existing system. However, there are some men who say that such conservativeness is hindering the advance of the science community, saying that it criticizes and curbs any form of deviation.

Here are some quotes that show their ideas.

I have no interest in your belief structure. You can accept the doctrine you have been taught by those whom you think are older and wiser, agree with the view of the masses, name and shame heretics.

The experiment does not care what you believe, neither do I feel any obligation to teach you. There is no one on the site who cares enough about what you say to correct the more obvious errors, why should I.

Conspiracy theories came from some other posting. My view on suchlike is that Government is collectively too stupid to manage that. Because the experiment does not contain exotic concepts (which I can spell even if I do not understand) is it way way under your head? Is it in fact too simple for a trained scientific mind to encompass? Heavy weight swings round light support, no problem. Put some dark matter on the light bit and the heavy thing becomes the light thing, exactly the same experiment, job done. There you are, now do you understand? Or is changing the light bit to a heavy bit using imaginary stuff not scientific?

" I ask you, does the claim that I personally live on the moon require as much evidence for you to believe it as the claim I have hair."

If you wanted to prove it to me I'd require exactly as much evidence as needed for both. I wouldn't require "extraordinary" evidence for either, whatever that is.

The NASA "breakthrough propulsion physics" program is riddled with flaws, and by no means an argument for anything. Did you know that they attempted to test inertial propulsion machines under rigorous conditions only to exclude the most promising ones because they "clearly violated Newton's third law of motion" and similar reasons? Why test anything if you can't even have an open mind? The judges were all but professional and a lot of inventors were left disappointed as they simply were forbidden to show their invention.

So, feel free to discuss about the subject, and curb any adversaries with your sour wordplay, dear science labs.

- - - Updated - - -

If the quotes are "offending" I'll remove them at once.

[vger]

I was going to write a longer response to this, but felt it probably wasn't worth it as it will probably raise total chaos.

Instead, I'll just leave this here.

This poor guy got treated almost as badly as how the likes of Galileo and Copernicus under the scrutiny of the Church. Probably would've been even worse had Science had control of the State.

[rtxoff]

I really hope for all scientists in the world that the current believe in all the established theories is true. It would really be a disaster if one ot more of the fundamentals come out to be wrong.

However i often wish that people be more open minded and do not believe things they did not verify/invent themself. Only because they teach some stuff at school it does not mean that this is the ultimative truth.

Most of us where gifted with a brain, use it accordingly. Don't let them poison your thoughts with pabulum. If you think you are up to something undertake everything possible to proof or disproof you idea. Only because all other say that something is, it must not be the truth. It's not like that, if everybody jumps off the cliff you are going to jump too, are'nt you?

[G'th]

I imagine this is regarding the disregard of things that seem to be closer to the realm of fringe science than serious scientific effort.

I can agree that that isn't a good thing at all as far as progress is concerned, but then again, it really depends on what we're talking about. For instance, the example in that second quote. That is pretty much the same idea as using a ten ton weight to crack open a walnut. Sure it solves the problem, but in a way that's just not efficient. You'd spend a vast amount of effort getting the solution (much less acquiring the materials) to work than it would take to actually implement that solution.

But then, take the fourth quote. Violating the third law of motion isn't something scientists should be shooting down automatically, especially if the ones presenting the idea had enough weight in their arguments (IE, proof of concept or close to it. The quote seems to imply they did in that case). Even so, however, it still depends. The ones who presented that particular idea may have been using something outlandish to accomplish it, producing the issue I laid out above. I don't know much about that particular NASA program but from what I know of NASA, they'd be looking for something they could implement at a reasonable cost, in both time and effort required. (money has a lot to do with it to. NASA doesn't have that big of a budget after all)

[vger]

Heh, G'th, I was gong to say that I think the LHC pretty much spits in the eye of any argument about reasonable cost, but then realized this is NASA we're talking about. NASA is probably never a good example for suggesting that science is a hindrance. The only thing holding NASA back is inadequate funding. Nothing to do with any inherent flaws in how science works.

[Duxwing]

I really hope for all scientists in the world that the current believe in all the established theories is true. It would really be a disaster if one ot more of the fundamentals come out to be wrong.

You should instead hope that scientists remember that no epistemology has provided certainty: science is always evolving! Furthermore, we have been wrong about the fundamentals over and over again. First we thought Earth was the center of the universe, which we thought was created by a God. Next we thought that Earth was almost at the center of the universe, next around the sun, next part of a galaxy, and finally part of what we see today. Heck, we know so little about the universe by mass that two of our cosmological fudge factors--Dark Matter and Dark Energy--are named after our ignorance. And frankly, I have a self-interest in discovering that the fundamentals are wrong: my scientific career has not even begun.

However i often wish that people be more open minded and do not believe things they did not verify/invent themself. Only because they teach some stuff at school it does not mean that this is the ultimative truth.

Most of us where gifted with a brain, use it accordingly. Don't let them poison your thoughts with pabulum. If you think you are up to something undertake everything possible to proof or disproof you idea. Only because all other say that something is, it must not be the truth. It's not like that, if everybody jumps off the cliff you are going to jump too, are'nt you?

Obviously! Also, consider the following related trivium. If all my friends, who are not only rational and levelheaded but thousands of miles apart, suddenly and simultaneously jumped off the same bridge, then I would consider that the wisdom of this learned crowd so likely exceeds mine that remaining on that bridge would be suicidal; hence the utility of scientific consensus.

-Duxwing

[Ralathon]

I think you're confusing conservatism with the burden of proof. Scientists don't sit around going "Most unorthodox! Rabble Rabble Rabble!" whenever someone says something alternative. What they do is that they look at the proverbial mountain of evidence on one side and a single guy saying "Trust me guys! This thing can totally violate newtons 3th law!" on the other...

If someone says they can make a magic drive and they want you to test it that'll cost time and resources. It's like a random stranger came up to you and said "Dude, I can fly using my mind! Jump off a building with me and I'll show you!". Seems like a rather shady deal doesn't it? Scientists are more then willing to accept that you can violate newtons 3th law. In fact, they'd be ecstatic if we could. It is always exciting as a scientist when something unexpected happens, pretty much all the major theories started with a guy in a lab going "Huh, that's odd!".

But there is no "huh, that's odd!" moment for reactionless drives. Every single one we've seen so far fall in one of the following catagories:

- theoretical and the thrust is a result of flawed reasoning and/or bad maths.

- the test results of their experimental setup are so error ridden that there's no way to tell if anything is happening.

- Straight up fraud, with no explanation of the principle and a magic black box within the machine that nobody is allowed to open (in perpetuum mobiles this is where they hide the batteries).

The moment someone builds a reactionless drive, patents it and shows that it actually works he'll be the richest guy on the globe. He'll be showered in praise and heralded as one of the great minds alongside Newton and Einstein. But you can't expect a freebie on this stuff. Proof or gtfo.

[phoenix_ca]

(money has a lot to do with it to. NASA doesn't have that big of a budget after all)

Poor NASA. If they had just 1-2% of the USA federal budget they could do amazing things. And hell' date=' if the USA had nixed just [b']one Nimitz-class carrier and dumped that money for construction (and subsequent operation) into NASA, we'd almost certainly have sent people to Mars by now. All that lack of funding makes me sad.

As for science...it's not really about conservatism, but due caution. Until you have evidence, all you have is a theory, an assertion. It may be a sound theory, based on previous observable data, but until you have supporting evidence that's all it is. Special and General Relativity wasn't really anything more than a theory until we observed its effects. So when so when someone comes along and presents something that would violate Newton's third law, you can bet that it won't be taken too seriously at first. If there is evidence, actual proof of it being true, then you might find that many scientists would be okay with ripping-up the physics textbooks. We did it with the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, with our primitive understanding of subatomic particles when quantum physics was verified, and piles and piles of other concepts over the past century.

Asking for empirical data to support theory isn't being "closed minded", it's being rational. The rational mind is swayed by evidence, not solely an argument, no matter how convincing. (Evidence can take the form of logical deduction but that's about as far as you get with reasoned argument being evidence in and of itself.)

Seems Ralathon covered this pretty well though.

Edited May 25, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[Camacha]

I think you're confusing conservatism with the burden of proof. Scientists don't sit around going "Most unorthodox! Rabble Rabble Rabble!" whenever someone says something alternative. What they do is that they look at the proverbial mountain of evidence on one side and a single guy saying "Trust me guys! This thing can totally violate newtons 3th law!" on the other...

That is of course how it should work, but the real world is never that black and white. In science, new ideas are often violently opposed before being accepted - especially those that go against the current understanding. Even though science inherently tries to work around this problem, its ranks are still being populated by scientists. Capable, often quite intelligent and most unfortunately human, which means they are subject too all humans flaws like pride, spite and whatnot. I think there are plenty of examples to be found where acceptance could have come a lot quicker, with the author victim of ridicule. So yeah, that is true conservatism and not just a pure and sensible quest for proof, and it is going to be that way as long as people do the science. A lot of good people work really hard to eliminate these kinds of attitudes though.

On the other hand, there are probably a few advantages to a conservative approach too.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Camacha

[Vanamonde]

Let's do try to stick to the subject of the thread, okay folks? We've just removed some completely off-topic rambling and responses to it.

[Space Viking]

Seems like the quotes are of unclear context to me. It's like reading: "You're all sheep because 'the experiment' does not care what you believe."

I guess the last quote is a rants over some unspecific propulsion theories being rejected because they where supposedly "the most promising ones"? Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Kryten]

This poor guy got treated almost as badly as how the likes of Galileo and Copernicus under the scrutiny of the Church. Probably would've been even worse had Science had control of the State.

Wegener was wrong. He wasn't rejected because he had crazy ideas, he was rejected because he had provably false ideas. He claimed centrifugal force was powerful enough to move continents, and calculations by others showed that to be impossible. His claims for actual rate of movement for plates was far higher than modern estimates, and also easily proved incorrect.

[Red Iron Crown]

Conservatism in science is a good, good thing. The proper scientific mindset is eternal skepticism mixed with an open mind.

Skepticism in requiring rigorous experimentation, observation, and documentation. This ensures that any change or refinement to existing theories must be demonstrable and repeatable. Note that it doesn't preclude change, it just requires that change be well supported.

An open mind in recognizing that nothing is ever "proven" in science, and that even the most well supported theory can be shown to be incomplete or wrong if a better, more complete theory that better matches our experimental data comes along.

The two sides of the mindset seem to be contradictory, and there are certainly scientific people that fall more into one side of it than the other, but both parts are critical to the advancement of our scientific knowledge.

[vger]

Wegener was wrong. He wasn't rejected because he had crazy ideas, he was rejected because he had provably false ideas. He claimed centrifugal force was powerful enough to move continents, and calculations by others showed that to be impossible. His claims for actual rate of movement for plates was far higher than modern estimates, and also easily proved incorrect.

So in other words, if you're right for the wrong reason, you're still not right, and whatever you said should be defecated on?

The Bohr model of the atom was proven to be wrong. Nobody ever took that as evidence that atoms don't exist.

The two sides of the mindset seem to be contradictory, and there are certainly scientific people that fall more into one side of it than the other, but both parts are critical to the advancement of our scientific knowledge.

Yeah, therein lies what makes the concept somewhat scary. Humans are naturally biased creatures. But there seems to be a train of thought which believes that scientists are somehow liberated from bias, just by becoming scientists. (hopefully there aren't scientists who think this way, because if they do, they're opening themselves up to it) Doesn't mean I don't think that most try to be unbiased, but we can't just switch off our basic programming, unfortunately.

Edited May 25, 2014 by vger

[rkman]

Science is known for its conservative nature.

It is not. Science is one of the most progressive endeavors of mankind, constantly pushing the borders of knowledge. I think you may be confusing science with religion.

It doesn't allow new theories to settle until they're compatible to the existing system.

That is incorrect.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2]" - wiki (sources: scientists).

Edited May 25, 2014 by rkman

[Kryten]

So in other words, if you're right for the wrong reason, you're still not right, and whatever you said should be defecated on?

I'm simply pointing out it's a bad example. That his model is vaguely similar to modern models doesn't change that it involved continents literally plowing through oceanic crust, rates of movement that would be fast enough to be visible just by comparing maps, and an energy source that was thousands of times less powerful than necessary. It's like saying Emmanual Velikovsky was a rejected genius because his 'theories' suggested planets could change orbital positions, just like modern models of solar system evolution.

[ZetaX]

So in other words, if you're right for the wrong reason, you're still not right, and whatever you said should be defecated on?

The Bohr model of the atom was proven to be wrong. Nobody ever took that as evidence that atoms don't exist.

And nobody took disproving of Wegener's arguments as proof that tectonics don't exist; but without any evidence in favor of it, there is no reason to believe in it. Atoms are "clearly" there in some way or another as we can observe some of their properties, as we now (!) can observe tectonics. So please stop making up such crude and bad comparisions, or at least go through with them.

[vger]

And nobody took disproving of Wegener's arguments as proof that tectonics don't exist; but without any evidence in favor of it, there is no reason to believe in it. Atoms are "clearly" there in some way or another as we can observe some of their properties, as we now (!) can observe tectonics. So please stop making up such crude and bad comparisions, or at least go through with them.

The only point I was originally trying to make was the vile ridicule he received for even trying to form a hypothesis for it.

That kind of a reaction doesn't exactly encourage people to suggest new ideas.

[Kryten]

The only point I was originally trying to make was the vile ridicule he received for even trying to form a hypothesis for it.

He received ridicule because his hypothesis was ridiculous.

[vger]

He received ridicule because his hypothesis was ridiculous.

Oh well, at least bullying is frowned upon these days. By most.

[Albert VDS]

I really hope for all scientists in the world that the current believe in all the established theories is true. It would really be a disaster if one ot more of the fundamentals come out to be wrong.

Scientific theories like quantum mechanics, general relativity, newtons theory of motion, etc. can never be wrong. It's wrong to say they could be wrong like those news stories that say "Einstein was wrong", because for example we wouldn't have GPS satilites, nuculear power plants, use grvitational lensing if he was. These theories describe the world around us, the next theory just needs to describe it better.

That's why we still use Newton's law of motion for spaceflight, because it describes it good enough to calculate an accurate flight. You could also use general relativity to calculate the same thing.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Albert VDS

[Jouni]

I think you're missing one major point.

Nobody understands physics anymore. It's just one field of research, but the body of knowledge has become so wide and complex that no single person in the world can fully understand it.

I personally work in theoretical computer science, but I don't understand most of the stuff published in the area. I know that in principle I could understand it, but I don't have the time to study the required background. In fact, I don't even have the time to follow the new results in theoretical computer science without even trying to understand them, because there are so many active researchers. I have to filter new results aggressively to have time for my own research. If something has been published by people I know, it's more likely to be interesting. If it's been published in a forum where interesting results often appear, it might also be interesting. If it's very close to my own research interests, I might read it anyway.

If you want your idea to be taken seriously, become a respected member of the relevant scientific community. It'll only take 5-10 years, depending on your background. If you don't have the ability, the opportunity, or the personality for it, there are other ways to prove the worth of your idea. For example, you can start a business around the idea. After you've earned your first billion, people will start taking you more seriously. Whatever you do, don't just argue about your idea. Arguments are basically worthless, because any reasonably smart person can argue about anything in a convincing way, while nobody has the time to determine whether this particular idea is worth anything.

Scientific knowledge is the consensus of the relevant scientific community. The community may sometimes oppose new ideas for decades, until the old people retire and die, being replaced by new people with new biases. For all its faults, it's still our best way to understand the world that's too complex for anyone to understand.

[vger]

Jouni, I sincerely hope you were intentionally being ironic, with at least some of what you said there. Particularly in the 3rd paragraph.

[rtxoff]

Well sadly Jouni is hitting the nail on the head. This is basically our sick world. Welcome to the reality

[phoenix_ca]

Oh well, at least bullying is frowned upon these days. By most.

Sure, if the victim is a girl. If you're a boy, SUCK IT UP MISTER.

No, I'm not jaded because of my childhood experiences with an educational system that quite literally justified its inaction because of my gender.

-.-