From: Stirling Westrup (sti@cam.org)
Date: Wed Feb 12 2003 - 18:20:37 MST
On 12 Feb 2003 at 16:40, Amara Graps wrote:
> Stirling Westrup:
> >Now, AGAIN, I will reiterate that this DOES NOT MEAN that all of the fringe
> >theories are automatically correct. It means (deep breath) WE DO NOT
> >CURRENTLY HAVE A THEORY OF THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE WHICH IS CONSISTENT
> >WITH *ALL* CURRENT OBSERVATIONS. That, pure and simple, is my point, and the
> >fact that it makes some folks uncomfortable, bothers me not one bit.
>
> I don't know how to read this.. the tone and attack and capital letters, etc.
> makes this message look like a rant or flamebait or maybe you had a polarizing
> experience that is not related to the topic at hand. That's what was going
> through my mind before I gave up reading it.
Yeah, I guess the 'polarizing incident' is a correct assessment. I have a
real problem with the fact that the vast majority of times I've talked to a
proponent of theory <X> and said "You know, the recent discovery of <Y> is
inconsistent with this theory", the response has been a personal attack.
Usually it takes the form of an assumption that I must be in some non-<X>
camp, or that I therefore believe any number of insane theories from the
lunatic fringe.
Its been rather rare, but refreshing, when the answer is a shrug and an
"Well, we're looking into that. We may need to change the theory."
> >I know that that is the "myth" promoted by the sciences. You obviously don't
> >work with real scientists doing real research.
>
> Do you?
Depends on your definitions. I started off in nuclear physics (with a leaning
towards cosmology) and have had occasion to work with such people in the
past. Currently I do research and development in software, which is related,
but isn't really the same thing.
> Here are a few good links on the cosmology field: basics as well as
> research (especially where the observations do and do not fit) and how
> and where the cosmologists are studying the different facets of
> cosmology.
>
Thanks, but I don't really need an introduction to cosmology, as I've read
about it extensively in the past (although I admit not much in the last 3
years, due to time pressures.)
If your point was that there is real research going on in the field, with
real adherence to the principles of the scientific method, I never doubted it
for a moment. How else would we have any progress to show?
I'm not anti-science, just anti-stupidity, and the point I was attempting to
make was that stupidity and rigidity of thought are as prevalent in the
sciences as everywhere else, and (as far as I can discern) in roughly the
same proportions as in any other field of human endeavour including, for
example, business administration.
I was initially very surprised at this, since I had always assumed the
sciences would be self-selecting for the best and the brightest, and that
scientists would be interested foremost in the truth, and would not heavily
invest ego into whatever theory they currently favoured.
> I'm not a cosmologist, but it never occurred to me to pick a technical field
> and formulate a rant against all people working in that field. That's rather
> bold.
I haven't singled out the cosmologists by any means. In fact, its probably,
at the moment, one of the more active points of innovation in the pure
sciences, precisely because (I would guess), there are enough new and
challenging discoveries being made and 'keeping the pot boiling' that me-too-
ism and concensus thought doesn't have much of a chance to set in.
All that being said, you will note that the vast majority of cosmological
press releases (including the one someone included in this thread) emphasize
not the changes to theories that the new results will require, but how well
they always fit with existing theories.
My own personal theory is that they are afraid that any portrayal of the most
exciting part of scientific discovery, the "Uh oh, what kind of result is
THIS?", will somehow allow the lunatic fringe to gain a toehold and start
announcing that the universe is shaped like a chicken, or some nonsense.
This may even be correct, but it has the unfortunate side effect the media
and many teachers (in fact, the vast majority of science teachers I've
encountered) end up assuming that the current theory is gospel and carved in
stone, rather than just being our current best approximation to the truth.
Anyway, I hope that the above post gives a better understanding of where I
was coming from in my last post. To bring things full circle, my original
reply to the post that started this thread was just trying to point out that
it is generally not possible to determine the "likelyhood", "strength",
"staying power" or similar metric of a given theory by either consulting the
popular press or surveying random scientists in the field. Either method will
end up heavily biased in favor of whatever is the current big theory.
I suppose you could even test this statement, given a sufficient historical
database of now-defunct theories and the popular and private communications
of the major scientific players in the field. Certainly, the (admittedly
small amount) that I have read on the history of scientific innovations seems
to support my conjecture.
-- Stirling Westrup | Use of the Internet by this poster sti@cam.org | is not to be construed as a tacit | endorsement of Western Technological | Civilization or its appurtenances.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 12 2003 - 21:46:58 MST