Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
#7426 07/05/06 01:30 PM
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 35
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 35
I think human nature is such that some people would actually believe the Emperor was clothed (and be very difficult to convince otherwise).
Others will agree with whatever they think will give them some kind of advantage - prestige, promotion, etc.
Most of the rest will then go with the flow - either due to peer pressure, or just following the latest fashion.

That only leaves a few ragged individualists and the fringe ratbags. Unfortunately the bureaucratically minded are not good at seperating the two, and usually throw out the baby with the bathwater (or keep the bathwater and throw out the baby).

.
#7427 07/05/06 02:29 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by Peter Bmn:
I think human nature is such that some people would actually believe the Emperor was clothed (and be very difficult to convince otherwise).
Others will agree with whatever they think will give them some kind of advantage - prestige, promotion, etc.
Most of the rest will then go with the flow - either due to peer pressure, or just following the latest fashion.

That only leaves a few ragged individualists and the fringe ratbags. Unfortunately the bureaucratically minded are not good at seperating the two, and usually throw out the baby with the bathwater (or keep the bathwater and throw out the baby).
When will we ever learn? People will believe it especially if the dressmakers have set them up as THE experts and only allowed opinions "peer reviewed" by them. If an opinion does not pass their peer review it must be crank! Only a crank will insult an emporer by saying he is walking around naked; is it not?

#7428 07/05/06 02:46 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Theory must always be handmaiden to observation. Observation cannot be gainside in science. Theory is rigorously derived, self-consistent, and survives empirical falsification. It can still be wrong.

Theory cannot defend its founding postulates or they would not be postulates. Any proposed experiment consistent with prior observation that nevertheless brings down theory by falsifying a founding postulate is hot stuff. It must be performed - certainly if it is cheap in consummable resources and labor.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm

Is gravitation metric or teleparallel? Two days' work with $(US)16 of chemical is calculated to be 33,000 times more sensitive than 90 day orthodox inquiries.


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
#7429 07/05/06 03:17 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Al:
Theory must always be handmaiden to observation. Observation cannot be gainside in science. Theory is rigorously derived, self-consistent, and survives empirical falsification. It can still be wrong.

Amen! That is why peer review should be objective and not in defense of existing dogma. It is very subtle. As pointed out by you theory might be consistent but still wrong. Another theory might be equally consistent and correct. According to Occam's razor the theory which simplifies interpretation should be considered as correct. But even this approach might also be misleading? Nonetheless, a theory that cannot explain everything about a phenomenon must contain some inherent flaws; like the BCS theory.

#7430 07/05/06 04:09 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
"Rocket scientist Robert Goddard found his ideas bitterly rejected by his scientific peers on the grounds that rocket propulsion would not work in the rarefied atmosphere of outer space."

JB, it seems that many people have had to go through the mill to find success. See:

http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/OnFailing.html


Myth: Scientists are Particularly Objective


Scientists are no different in their level of objectivity than are other professionals. They are careful in the analysis of evidence and in the procedures applied to arrive at conclusions. With this admission, it may seem that this myth is valid, but contributions from both the philosophy of science and psychology reveal that there are at least three major reasons that make complete objectivity impossible.


Many philosophers of science support Popper's (1963) view that science can advance only through a string of what he called conjectures and refutations. In other words, scientists should propose laws and theories as conjectures and then actively work to disprove or refute those ideas. Popper suggests that the absence of contrary evidence, demonstrated through an active program of refutation, will provide the best support available. It may seem like a strange way of thinking about verification, but the absence of disproof is considered support. There is one major problem with the idea of conjecture and refutation. Popper seems to have proposed it as a recommendation for scientists, not as a description of what scientists do. From a philosophical perspective the idea is sound, but there are no indications that scientists actively practice programs to search for disconfirming evidence.


Another aspect of the inability of scientists to be objective is found in theory-laden observation, a psychological notion (Hodson, 1986). Scientists, like all observers, hold a myriad of preconceptions and biases about the way the world operates. These notions, held in the subconscious, affect everyone's ability to make observations. It is impossible to collect and interpret facts without any bias. There have been countless cases in the history of science in which scientists have failed to include particular observations in their final analyses of phenomena. This occurs, not because of fraud or deceit, but because of the prior knowledge possessed by the individual. Certain facts either were not seen at all or were deemed unimportant based on the scientists's prior knowledge. In earlier discussions of induction, we postulated that two individuals reviewing the same data would not be expected to reach the same conclusions. Not only does individual creativity play a role, but the issue of personal theory-laden observation further complicates the situation.


This lesson has clear implications for science teaching. Teachers typically provide learning experiences for students without considering their prior knowledge. In the laboratory, for instance, students are asked to perform activities, make observations and then form conclusions. There is an expectation that the conclusions formed will be both self-evident and uniform. In other words, teachers anticipate that the data will lead all pupils to the same conclusion. This could only happen if each student had the same exact prior conceptions and made and evaluated observations using identical schemes. This does not happen in science nor does it occur in the science classroom.


Related to the issue of theory-based observations is the allegiance to the paradigm. Thomas Kuhn (1970), in his ground-breaking analysis of the history of science, shows that scientists work within a research tradition called a paradigm. This research tradition, shared by those working in a given discipline, provides clues to the questions worth investigating, dictates what evidence is admissible and prescribes the tests and techniques that are reasonable. Although the paradigm provides direction to the research it may also stifle or limit investigation. Anything that confines the research endeavor necessarily limits objectivity. While there is no conscious desire on the part of scientists to limit discussion, it is likely that some new ideas in science are rejected because of the paradigm issue. When research reports are submitted for publication they are reviewed by other members of the discipline. Ideas from outside the paradigm are liable to be eliminated from consideration as crackpot or poor science and thus do not appear in print.


Examples of scientific ideas that were originally rejected because they fell outside the accepted paradigm include the sun-centered solar system, warm-bloodedness in dinosaurs, the germ-theory of disease, and continental drift. When first proposed early in this century by Alfred Wegener, the idea of moving continents, for example, was vigorously rejected. Scientists were not ready to embrace a notion so contrary to the traditional teachings of their discipline. Continental drift was finally accepted in the 1960s with the proposal of a mechanism or theory to explain how continental plates move (Hallam, 1975 and Menard, 1986). This fundamental change in the earth sciences, called a revolution by Kuhn, might have occurred decades earlier had it not been for the strength of the paradigm.

http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

***********************************************

JB, it must be hard when you have invested so much of yourself in your work to see it get such short shrift. Keep chipping away and keep sending it for review - and if you are destined to sit on the sidelines of accepted science then you are certainly in good company.

Regards,

Blacknad.

#7431 07/05/06 04:25 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
Well said Blacknad!

#7432 07/05/06 05:29 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Thanks Blacknad,

You have summarised the problem well. To fight it, journals should not allow reviewers to reject anything without motivating it. To state that "we already have a theory" is NOT a motivation. Neither is it a motivation for an editor, and in this case a Nobel Lauriate (Frank Wilczek) to reject a manuscript because he finds it "too speculative". Such an argument is is NOT a motivation but a subjective prejudice (like Apartheid). In fact if it is applied to Frank Wilczek's publications, not one of them should ever have been published.

#7433 07/05/06 05:45 PM
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 142
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 142
For the most part, peer review reduces the amount of junk published in journals. If one person can read a paper and save 100 people from wasting their time, the referee has done a good job.

Yes a lot of quality work was delayed because it did not follow current understanding. I used to have a collection of physics books from the 1800's. I recall reading something describing a picture of a galaxy stating, "some have described these as island universes, much farther away from us than most of the stars we see. Of course, we know that no to be the case."

I.e. they were giving a thumbs down to the concept of galaxies.

However, there were many many more ideas that were just plain wrong or too qualitative to have any real meaing. Discussions of electrical essences and the like.

What I see from JB's discussions is a lot of qualitative discussion and nothing quantitative. How is someone on this forum supposed to make an real judgement of the quality of the work? Gee, he can fit data for tin. How? I can fit the data as well, using the price of gold, the birthdate of Ohnes, and a lot of other obviously unphysical inputs. Give me enough variables and let me pick whatever equations I want and I can fit anything.

Doesn't make it physics.

I pointed out to JB in a different thread that a paper using Wigner crystals to model superconductivity has already been published. This demonstrates two things: (1) the scientific community will publish in this general area, even though the BCS theory exists and (2) JB didn't do his homework. A paper such as this which can be found so easily on the databases shouldn't be news to someone working in the area.

You are in good company, sure. Doesn't make your statements correct. They put guilty people in the Birmingham jail. Doesn't mean that the burglar is in the same league as Martin Luthur King.

#7434 07/05/06 06:00 PM
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 142
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Boy:
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Being objective ... the point of my example was that the boy was right ... and with time and perseverence ... that was acknowledged by all.

Had he criticized the adults who disagreed with him they would have gotten defensive and he'd have been ignored.

Human nature, good, bad, and ugly, is what it is.

Unfortunately for many of us a lot of the time.
By just saying that the Emporer is naked, the adults disagreeing with the boy would have been on the defensive and they will tell him to keep quiet or "leave the kitchen when things become too hot" because they "believe" that the Emporer has clothes. How else could the boy then persevere but to restate his observation and pointing out to the adults that they are not wanting to look at the facts? It seems to me that your analogy is flawed?
But, the question is,

Are you or the established theory the emperor?

You may be correct. But, given the information you have out so far, who can decide other than the referee?

#7435 07/05/06 06:33 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
We seem to have two frustrated authors here; JB and extraNONsense. Neither seems to quite get what is required to be published so I'll give them the guidelines I used back when I had to play the publish or perish game.

1. Be an expert on prior art.

Have a copy of every important paper on the subject ever published and a good working knowledge of its contents and its authors.

Be prepared in what you've written to explain how what you are writing agrees with prior art and how it disagrees with or extends prior art. Provide concrete examples (math or lab results) to support where you disagree or extend.

2. Be an expert on prior failures.

Be prepared in what you've written to explain any prior suggestions of ideas similar to yours that have made it to the dustbin of science. Have concrete examples (math or lab results) showing either where the prior authors went wrong or why they were right and those that "proved them wrong" were incorrect.

3. Find your own reviewers.

Have your paper reviewed by peers, grad students and professors, and take their suggestions seriously. If they have nothing bad to say they are not of any value so thank them nicely and find someone else willing to be helpful.

4. Get a co-author.

Put your d..n ego into the closet and find someone with a PhD to co-author your first paper or two. If you are not in the citation indexes yet the endorsement won't hurt. If no one is interested in being your co-author there is a 99.95% probability that you are a wacko and need to learn to make a Boolean choice between these two options:

Option A: Seek professional counselling
Option B: Seek another profession


DA Morgan
#7436 07/05/06 06:53 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
DA Morgan has summed it up rather neatly!

Real scientists do everything on this list and then some. That's why they have advisors in Ph.D. programs: just so that you learn this stuff.

#7437 07/05/06 09:35 PM
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 142
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 142
DA Morgan

1) you could add Uncle Al to your list of frustrated authors

2) JB appears to be well versed in getting publications out. He has a few in his own field, and I can see that he already has answers to many of your suggestions.

#7438 07/05/06 09:50 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
JB is an emiritus professor. I'm puzzled why he can't post on arXiv. If he needs endorsement, he should email Hirsch:

http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0508471

He also works on alternative theories of superconductivity.

#7439 07/05/06 09:51 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Al certainly seems to be a bundle of angst. But I've yet to see him whining and bemoaning his fate vis-a-vis publishing papers. When he does he too will earn (or should that be urn) similar advice.

JB seems the best of the bunch. In fact I have rarely found reason to disagree with him. His recent whining seems rather out of character. He just needs to put the past behind him and realize that there are limited publishing opportunities and a huge pool of authors: Time to move on.

As Robert Heinlein said:
"Of course the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you--if you don't play, you can't win."


DA Morgan
#7440 07/05/06 10:37 PM
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 142
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:

JB seems the best of the bunch. In fact I have rarely found reason to disagree with him. His recent whining seems rather out of character. He just needs to put the past behind him and realize that there are limited publishing opportunities and a huge pool of authors: Time to move on.
JB seems in many ways reasonable. I don't have a problem with his theory--since I haven't seen it I can't. I see a problem with his presentation. He asks us all to believe him without presenting the acutal theory.

#7441 07/05/06 11:08 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by J. Arthur God:
[QUOTE]JB seems in many ways reasonable. I don't have a problem with his theory--since I haven't seen it I can't. I see a problem with his presentation. He asks us all to believe him without presenting the acutal theory.
Wow what a great reaction (taking into account all the postings since my last). I am really impressed and feel as if we are becoming friends. I do not expect you all to just believe me. Therefore, I have asked some questions, here and on other threads (see "modelling superconduction"); however, I do not get any response. Nonetheless, your criticism that I have not posted on archive has merit; it also has a history which I do not want to enter into. I have sent the manuscript to my webmaster and will chase him to have it posted on my website. Will you all then be prepared to ask scientific questions? I think you all are capable of doing so; and I am looking forward to it. Lets give science a chance!

#7442 07/06/06 03:17 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
JB asks:
"Will you all then be prepared to ask scientific questions?"

I think some of us will be prepared to read it. But whether you get questions or a serious critique is not preordained. You need to be prepared for both and take them in-stride.


DA Morgan
#7443 07/06/06 08:48 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:

I think some of us will be prepared to read it. But whether you get questions or a serious critique is not preordained. You need to be prepared for both and take them in-stride.
I am happy to get serious critique; that is what science is all about. Just remember that "serious" requires motivation. I phoned my webmaster this morning (here in South Africa) and he said he will try and attend to the posting of my article this evening (SA time). So it should be available within a day; I hope.

#7444 07/06/06 01:25 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
We seem to have two frustrated authors here; JB and extraNONsense. Neither seems to quite get what is required to be published so I'll give them the guidelines I used back when I had to play the publish or perish game.

1. Be an expert on prior art.

Have a copy of every important paper on the subject ever published and a good working knowledge of its contents and its authors.

Be prepared in what you've written to explain how what you are writing agrees with prior art and how it disagrees with or extends prior art. Provide concrete examples (math or lab results) to support where you disagree or extend.

2. Be an expert on prior failures.

Be prepared in what you've written to explain any prior suggestions of ideas similar to yours that have made it to the dustbin of science. Have concrete examples (math or lab results) showing either where the prior authors went wrong or why they were right and those that "proved them wrong" were incorrect.

3. Find your own reviewers.

Have your paper reviewed by peers, grad students and professors, and take their suggestions seriously. If they have nothing bad to say they are not of any value so thank them nicely and find someone else willing to be helpful.

4. Get a co-author.

Put your d..n ego into the closet and find someone with a PhD to co-author your first paper or two. If you are not in the citation indexes yet the endorsement won't hurt. If no one is interested in being your co-author there is a 99.95% probability that you are a wacko and need to learn to make a Boolean choice between these two options:

Option A: Seek professional counselling
Option B: Seek another profession
I agree with Dr. Rocket that this is good advice, except for point 4. All authors of a paper must have made significant contribution to the results in the paper. If you submit a paper to Phys. Rev. you now have to sign a statement that everyone who made significant contribution was offered the opportunity to become a co-author and that all the co-authors made significant contributions.

Of course, it's difficult to check if people are violating this ethical rule. But it is a form of scientific fraud/corruption to give a paper more weight by offering some well known Prof. who hasn't made a significant contribution to the results to become a co-author.

#7445 07/06/06 02:10 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Hi all,

If you are interested in my paper on the basic mechanism for superconduction; which is at the moment being considered for publication, you can get a preprint at www.cathodixx.com It has been inserted under newsletter.

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5