Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Did Copernicus, a monk ... and there are others like him... have a degree in a science? Were there no self-taught scientists, ever? What about Benjamin Franklin?

I am sitting a the airport terminal waiting to catch the next flight reading your reply Rev. The networks bad it's cold and I am very tried so bear with me and I have had to write this offline while having a coffee.

The problem we have is when we look at very old history you could have someone with moderate intelligence and they could actually be very bright in there period. However it's important to realize with say Benjamin Franklin knowledge
these days would actually be considered something like a school dropout today. The baseline of knowledge that needs to stay up with science increases every year, our children and grandchildren will need to learn things we may not even
know right now.

Therefore when you are judging the overall ability to change science the point of reference to use is do they understand enough of what is already known to actually make a difference.

So let's look at some of these characters we have on our forum and it appears to be true of all science forums at least that you get a level of what I would call anarchist tendencies.

Your mate TT is a classic for that he has absolutely nothing useful or even remotely interesting to say infact you can boil almost all of anything he has to say as being contrarian ... if you call it white he will call it black. I showed in one of the threads it's quite funny because you can turn the whole argument back on him because he suffers the second problem they all have


They actually assume and think they are smart and they are smarter than us poor plebs who frequent these forums because we actually have interest in the area.

Lets take our mate Maciej Marosz here he hasn't even worked out he has spoken to me on a number of sites because he posts on many sites .. the thought I doubt even crossed his mind.

Parts of the original idea was posted on the Lockheed Martin competition for a $25 000 prize which was open last year, here is his application


He has also posted the idea on a number of university websites like MIT.

The he has the obligatory posting on physics forums


He was even posting it on electronic distributor websites like Farnell which made me laugh.

He is represented on youtube

He has what seems like countless websites

He was obviously getting desperate trying posting on what we generally call the nutcase sites


Andy at network54 actually did a reasonable job of hearing him out

Basically you name it he has posted or tried to get traction on this idea and how he has the persistence and energy for all this I admire and why I sort of waded thru this garbage.

The usual response which I actually felt sorry for him for was on google+

Best Answer Voter's Choice
I have just nominated you for the Cretin of the Week Award.

So whats going on here why is Maciej Marosz regarded so badly by basically everyone why isn't he taken seriously.

There are basically two problems for Maciej Marosz

1.) He is missing understanding and knowledge on large important parts of science in the area he is trying to change.

Benjamin Franklin who you detailed above was basically a world leader in understanding of electricity when he was working on it. Franklin was instrumental in starting the University of Pennsylvania. Einstein and Feynman both worked with the leading scientists of there day.

A question that comes to mind has an real advance ever been made by someone who did not understand the leading theories in that area at the time. I actually doubt it because to effectively overturn a theory you have to understand it and I can't think of anyone who has done it.

2.) The second problem and I think it stems from the previous problem is he won't argue out a theory and accept the result of argument.

You watch footage of the discussions and lectures of Einstein and Feynman they didn't avoid questions or objections to there theory they actively went after them like rabid dogs. I watched footage of Einstein and Bohr going at it over atomic
structure they were good friends but boy they argued hard.

Wikipedia records it


=> Their debates are remembered because of their importance to the philosophy of science.

They will be remembered because they were brutal and honest science arguments.

So there you have my two requirements for being able to overturn the world of science

- You must understand the theory and implications you seek to overturn
- You must be able to systematically and logically argue against the existing theory in favour of the new one answering all objections to it.

If you could get a layman able to meet those two requirements they probably could do it, the problem is would a layman ever develop those skills without a formal education to develop that ability ... I doubt it

So there you have my long and honest answer Rev and I have 20 min left to waste smile

Originally Posted By: Revlgking


It is up to all of us, as people--philosophers, including curious children, scientists (especially those here on SAGG) and all creative artists to show the way.

I tried Rev K but like you I do only have so much time to give to lost causes smile

The post ended up so long I doubt anyone will read it which is probably just as well laugh

Edited by Orac (11/15/13 08:47 AM)
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.