Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Scientific snobbery

How far will scientific snobbery take us?

I see a club of sorts where in membership requires non-members secure a degree in physics; or at least a masters or two. Probably there are some out there that recall the attack on Velekovsky when he wrote his ?Worlds in Collision? and some academics tried to get the publisher not to publish his work. I learned about this long after the fact but I wanted to read the book as soon as I learned of it. It was said to be out of print so I bought a used copy on the Web. I was impressed with the effort that went into the book but not at all convinced that a glob came out of Jupiter, moved around disruptively and settled in with us as the planet Venus. His research on catastrophic findings is remarkable. Catastrophic events are known to have occurred in the past.

It seems to me there is a lot of professional snobbery within the scientific community that is probably motivated by a desire not just to create a closed club but to protect dogma that is the subject of the clubs foundation. No one wants to go back to school again and possibly a new idea, if supportable, may be like a large typographical error in their scientific degree. I am posting this to see if I am alone in this view.
Jim

I don't agree with the attempts to censor Velikovsky, but I do agree with the general tenor of the criticism.

Anyone can say any stupid thing. With the internet, stupidity can travel much faster than ever before imagined. And people are much more likely to believe simplistic nonsense than they are to believe something that is correct, but complicated.

That's absolutely false. Read the thread about Tegmark's multiverse theory below. Many physicists don't like these sort of theories, but he can still publish in leading scientific journals. DA Morgan claims that what he is doing isn't science, but he is wrong. If Tegmark's articles about the multiverse were always rejected because of the arguments put forward by DA Morgan, then you would have a point. But fortunately, that's not the case.

Excellent point.

"Simplistic", that may be a reason to reject but what if it works? I am aware that complex things most often require complex methods to reach an understanding of same; but always?
Jim

It's like E said. "Things should be as simple as possible ... but no simpler."

I have no problem with simple. I'm not a scientist, but I work with many, and I know very well that they have no problem with simple. But I used the word simplistic (as opposed to simple) to convey the idea that these notions are often incorrect, but have the illusion of being correct so long as one doesn't look too closely.

Hi Count:

I think that "absolutely false" means 100% false?
The problem with snobbery in any profession is the way it can work which includes things not altogether obvious. Working within the framework of a formal education it is deemed reasonable to
expect an idea to conform to the educational status of the reviewer, and that's reasonable. But if the very education of the reviewer rejects concepts foriegn to that education we have a built in snobbery, albiet you may not think of it that way. For example a color blind person will adjust to the difficulty and likely live a normal life. As part of that ajustment, say education, they will learn to see things that are required for safety, say traffic lights, and recognize them to work with them. They have accomadated a view point that functions for them. Education does the same thing to all of us. We expect certain things to be correct within the boundaries of our education and when they conflict we are inclined to rejection because overcoming our mindset is a difficult thing for any body. It works just as well for ignorance "don't confuse me with facts".

I can provide examples from the various postings that fit my statement but I do not want to take the idea down that far. I had said something like "the orbital velocity mile for mile from the sun out of the system with no showing that the Mass of the orbiting body plays any part in it". A member thought I was quoting McCutchen and I was not. I was saying what I can prove. When I corrected the error it went un-noticed.

Reactions to conflicting information are strange. It was used, I think, as a part of brain washing during the 2nd world war. It is interesting to see the members reactions.

I want to read Max Tegmarks essay but for some reason the download did not take. I'll retry.
jw

In science you are allowed to disagree. There are immense rewards to the stubborn naysayer who can actually back up his opinion.

The problem is that the vast majority of would-be reformers are not reformers at all. They are idiots who refuse to do the most basic of homework. It isn't enough to disagree to make one a hero. One ought to actually understand the opposing view - to the extent that is actually capable of being understood - and that understanding ought to be easily discernable to those who read the critique.

JW,

This forum is not representative of the scientific community. Also a particular scientist may behave like a snob. But the peer review process is designed to take away biases. It's still not perfect, but there are many scientific journals...

The mere fact that an idea presented in an article is very strange and is not in line with current accepted scientific thinking will not lead to a rejection. See here for a few examples:


A supersymmetric model of gamma ray bursts


Chameleon Fields: Awaiting Surprises for Tests of Gravity in Space


Have mirror planets been observed?

Hi Count:

It is about 9:30 AM here in Palm Desert, CA and a perfect day which should top around 90 degrees.

I think you fellows are talking about people making offers of ideas that themselves are already members of the "club".

You are each invited to email me a mailing address and I will send you a free copy of my paper back book. I sent Pasti a copy and smaranth got her free copy direct from the publisher (I was out of copies here in desert)

The book may or may not surprise you with what can be accomplished with simple math. My other ideas about things are not important. It is the simplistic results, including the determination of planetary rotations, probably natural satellites too, that is important to me. I went to the publisher too soon because at the time I thought I was on my way out. I still have old notes to rework. jjw004@pcmagic.net

Surfing the Solar System by James J. Wood, Sr.
ISBN # 1-4208-4452-0 (sc, AuthorHouse.com

Jim

Competence exists as an objective, absolute measure of merit. Bush the Lesser's nomination of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice is not condemned as a matter of politics or ideology. Harriet Miers is a third rate lawyer who has never argued a case at the Federal Apellate level or above. Being the President's drinking buddy is not a qualification for being a Surpeme Court justice until death, voluntary withdrawal, or impeachement and conviction.

If you want to argue planetary orbital emphemerides, you had bloody well better be able to demonstrate you can calculate planetary orbital ephemerides in front of those people who can.

Remember Dark Matter as a curve-fitting explanation of how spiral galaxies persist throughout all visible time? Dark Matter recently disappeared,

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507619

Science, fractionally improved, now moves on.

Velikovsky (spelling counts) was a crank. His local description of the solar system violates conservation of energy, linear and angular momenta. It is crap.

To Uncle Al:
You have been much kinder to me than is your usual style. Yes, spelling counts, and I suppose if I can miss-spell I can miss-calculate. Velikovsky was a very good researcher for what he sought to discover. His conclusions were not up to proof but we need not label him badly for being wrong. So many people never develop anything original in their lives we should appreciate those that make an effort.

I do not discuss politics here. As a retired lawyer I can look with disfavor on the nomination of Harriet Miers; I am using your spelling- never heard of her.

When the prospect of scientific snobbery comes up I suggest you step forward as a standard bearer. You have a fine tuned sense of ?get em? that comes through clearly. I would not expect you to discuss a scientific subject with me as an equal but I can not understand your desire to jump on a subject with what ?you know? before you even know what will be offered. Some people are aware that not all potential questions about the Solar System have been answered. Let?s stay with the current issue- if you can restrain yourself a bit, you will have a little more information to jump on.

The mean orbital radius, the semi-major axis, equates to the orbital velocity of the orbiting object. If you use miles as a measure as I do then there is a working relationship between seconds and miles providing an opportunity for me/anyone to obtain the orbital velocity of objects in miles per second. This does not conflict with any law of physics and in particular complies with the Laws Kepler originated. We are simply getting provable results by an easier, different, method. When we run this out within the Solar System it demonstrates that my method provides the very same orbital velocity for each planet or satellite that has been published based on the observations of many astronomers. It is best with the planets because the published observation data is better. In fact, I can show where the published data is faulty for satellites.

For a moment give me the benefit of the doubt and consider what I am saying is correct If these efforts show that mile for mile from the sun outwards that the orbital velocity of planets is predetermined by their mean orbital radius and bears NO apparent contribution of their alleged Mass then my conclusion would be justified. Really- compare the Mass of Earth and Jupiter ? they fit.

You are playing the dogma game and I don?t play it. You want me to prove to you that I can calculate the planetary orbits as you would, or shut up. That is not relevant to this discussion because I am not contending your method of calculation is incorrect. I am saying there is another way to do it. If the results tend to question some other favored view of science then show me my error. You can not show me any error if you don?t even know what I?m saying.

Knowing how you are I would never-the-less offer you a free copy of the book as well on condition that you READ some of the contents before you spray your usual venom? Let?s put ego aside and deal in reality. My email
address is above.

Jim Wood