In my experience, you really should have a closed mind to be an effective scientist

[Recursion]

Maybe "closed mind" is the wrong term, but something like it. Most scientists I've known have been very, very unwilling to give an hypothesis much credence without some pretty substantial evidence in its favor. Scientists should be -- must be -- by default very skeptical of every positive claim made, and should always be willing to accept (which also means formulate in the first place) a null hypothesis.

"But what about Einstein, or Galileo? They made bold leaps that were later proven right."

Sort of, but probably not like you think. Long before Einstein, physicists (including even Maxwell) had adopted a convention of a "local time" t0 for a charged particle moving in a magnetic field. Lorenz had shown the dilation and contraction that must take place but considered them artifacts of realizable measurement systems. Einstein's step was simply adopting those conventions as the way of addressing "reality".

Galileo was condemned by a Vatican that had long before accepted that the earth orbits the Sun (or at least adopted that model for the purpose of calculations), and was largely condemned because he was using his theory of ballistics to help the Florentine artillery shoot at Papal armies more effectively, plus being on the wrong side of several counter-Reformation political fights.

As James Burke points out so well, fundamental innovations in science and technology are exceedingly rare, and never created by lone researchers. Scientific progress is always collaborative, slow, and chaotic.

It's frustrating. I did some instrumentation programming for a biomedical lab that was working on an Alzheimer's treatment. The trials ran for three years and could never quite show that the drug did what people hoped it would do. And even the small confidence factor they had shrank with every repetition (this is apparently common enough that there have been studies of this effect). In the end, despite her strong hunch that the drug would be effective, the lead researcher had to go with the null hypothesis because that's where the evidence led.

Science is slow, frustrating, and fundamentally collaborative. Lone voices howling in the wilderness are usually there for a reason. Scientists have closed minds to anything that the evidence cannot demonstrate -- to the extent they don't, they are no longer scientists.

[geek tragedy]

1. Au contraire, progress in science is not slow and collaborative.

Not always anyways.

See generally T. S. Kuhn.

[pnwmom]

17. Thank you. I keep thinking of that book over and over

during these discussions.

[FarCenter]

49. See also Max Planck

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Also paraphrased as:

Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.

Science advances one funeral at a time.

[yellowcanine]

54. Maybe, but neither are scientific discoveries generally"accidental."

Even something like Fleming's "discovery" of penicillin required (1) Careful observation and knowing what to look for - not the kind of thing one calls an "accident." and (2) Doing the actual experiments to verify that the observation was repeatable and determining the reasons for the observation. Fleming for sure spent many hours in the lab before and after the "Eureka" moment.

[geek tragedy]

55. it's generally not an either/or, but rather a combination of the two--

decades on the grindstone followed by swift leaps forward.

[SidDithers]

2. Good post...

Science really is the never ending struggle to prove something wrong. That's what the constant, repetitive testing of an idea is.



Sid

[Humanist_Activist]

3. Discernment is probably what you are looking for, not closed minds, the ones with closed minds...

are those who rely on faith rather than evidence.

[1000words]

4. It takes imagination to introduce a hypothesis

It takes science to prove it. Each are equally important.

[Scootaloo]

8. The hypothesis is actually based off evidence obtained through research

[1000words]

9. Fair enough

The process begins with asking a question. There are no limits or confines to that activity.
My use of the word "hypothesis" was indeed technically premature, but rhetorically it is the most open-ended word with regards to scientific terminology.

[Scootaloo]

10. Oh certainly, one must have imagination to come up with a question

Butyou have to be a skeptic to get the correct answer to that question

[1000words]

11. Indeed

[RobertEarl]

5. Pay them enough they will study anything

Scientists, most of them as far as we can tell, are just humans. </sarc>

Like most humans who will sell themselves to the highest bidder.

The best scientists are those that do science just for the thrill.

[Recursion]

6. If your thesis is that money can lead to bad science

I'm there with you. Same thing for arts and letters, too.

Honestly, the corrupting power of money in science worries me more than in politics. Though the two are related (and science, being collaborative, is inherently political, at least in the Aristotelian sense).

[gcomeau]

51. Which is why science has peer review.

You can pay one corrupt group of scientists to study something and skew their results, but one of the main things science demands is that those results be REPRODUCIBLE.

If all other scientists cannot replicate your results they become invalidated. And there is no time limit on that process. Findings are subject to verification and testing by the entire scientific community FOREVER.

Thus does science guard against this kind of corruption surviving and thriving. People can still get a study to say somethng false, but that study will not long stand the scrutiny the scientific method demands it be subjected to.

As opposed to the woo community.

[RobertEarl]

63. True

Like the nukes are safe and their radiation is good for you crowd.

They all got paid big money to come up with that crap.

Now, we, even the dumbest among us, have had a chance to review that crap and know now we were lied to. Nukes are safe has been invalidated.

Yet, here on DU, there are still a few who will try to woo you claiming nukes are safe and radiation from those man-made reactors is ok.

[Scootaloo]

7. Easier way of saying it; a good scientist is a hard skeptic

A skeptic is not someone who reflexively refuses ideas, a skeptic is someone who only accepts evidence. As science revolves around the connection and analysis of evidence then, to be a good scientist one must by default be a hardassed skeptic.

[JHB]

12. Not closed, but a sifter...

My little joke on the subject is "a scientist has a mind like a sieve, but not in the usual sense of the phrase."

The goal of science is to get past all the ways we mortal, flawed humans have of kidding ourselves and find out what's really going on.

[bemildred]

13. Skepticism is not the same thing as being opinionated. Far from it. nt

[yellowcanine]

62. "Skepticism" is just another term for "most parsimonious" explanation.

So when someone says that "elves did it" the skeptic rightly questions that. And a true scientific skeptic (meaning other than the GW type) will accept a new explanation when it is backed up by verifiable data. There is a difference between scientific skepticism and "I don't believe it unless I see it with my own two eyes and they might be lying to me" skepticism. A scientific skeptic always allows that new science may provide a better explanation.

[bemildred]

64. No, skepticism is doubt. "Most parsimonious" is Occam's Razor.

And neither is necessarily right, but I've become VERY fond of Occam's Razor.

[yellowcanine]

66. Semantics, imo.

There are people who doubt anything which is contrary to their own experience. A skeptic is a bit more nuanced than that. I would say a skeptic is one who questions rather than one who doubts. I will admit that it is a subtle difference.

[bemildred]

67. I must disagree. The meanings are distinct, and it's a good, useful distinction.

Skepticism is the antithesis of belief.
Occam's Razor is about parsimony in theorizing.
They are indeed related, as Occam's Razor can serve as a reason to doubt.

[Locut0s]

14. But this picture isn't sexy so it will never "sell"...

I don't think anyone who knows much about real science would disagree with anything you just said. But in the eyes of the people looking for something to "grab onto", often something to make them feel more comfortable, this isn't an exciting or sexy picture of science. So the image of the mad scientist running through the streets naked screaming eureka because he has suddenly invented a new branch of science will probably always win out.

[Locut0s]

15. I have a slightly different take on this...

I agree with everything you said 100%. But would like to add another point of view.

Scientists in my experience are better able to fully accept they don't understand something, at all. Indeed this is the fundamental starting block for all scientific progress. Something is discovered to be "not quite as we thought" and instead of jumping to a conclusion or building a theory out of whole cloth they first admit to themselves something very important. "I have no idea what the fuck I'm looking at here". From here the scientific method and other tools of inquiry kick in. But this willingness to admit you have no idea what's going on seems to come easier to scientists and those who follow their world view than elsewhere.

One of the threads that binds together pseudo science, conspiracy theories and the like is that these are people who were by and large unwilling to admit they didn't understand some fundamental concept. Instead they built their own fabrications and theories to help fill the gap more out of fear than genuine curiosity and a willingness to seek the truth.

[Recursion]

16. Well said

Good points

[pnwmom]

20. I agree with you completely about scientists and how they think.

I just don't agree that this also applies to all the people who "follow their world view."

Some of the followers are far more dogmatic than the actual scientists I know.

[Locut0s]

21. Well yes, I'll give you that. :P

[eqfan592]

31. And some of their critics rely on the accusation of dogmatism far more than is truly applicable. nt

[pnwmom]

18. Top scientists are creative people who are open to new ideas.

They want to see good, solid testing of these ideas, but they wouldn't be happy with your description of them as having closed minds.

[Recursion]

19. What does "top scientists" mean?

I don't know any journals that refer to "top scientists".

[pnwmom]

22. Members of the National Academy of Science, for example.

And PhD's who are the most successful in carrying out their research programs and publishing significant results.

They don't use the term "top scientists," but they tend to know each other, within their particular fields.

[Locut0s]

23. Actually I don't think many would have an issue with it...

Taking into account Recursions definition of what he meant by he term of course. Their minds are closed. Closed to leaps of faith for no reason, wild conjecture without reason, etc. otherwise nothing separates science from non science.

[pnwmom]

24. The biggest advances in science tend to come from scientists

who can make those leaps -- leaps from one field of science to another, for example. They can make mental connections that other people don't see -- at first. Later, after all the research is done, it might seem very obvious.

This is why most scientific breakthroughs either come from young scientists who are not too deeply entrenched in the old models, or from researchers with a background in other fields. The closed-minded scientists in a field work inside the old, entrenched models. They can make incremental progress, but they usually aren't the ones who make substantial breakthroughs.

[Locut0s]

25. Those aren't the kind of leaps that Recursion or I are saying scientists are closed to....

Those they should be very much open to. And I fully agree with you in all that you said. The kinds of leaps they are closed to are leaps of illogic that other forms of pseudoscience are open to.

[eqfan592]

32. Bingo. nt

[cantbeserious]

26. Woo That Some Should Consider

[HERVEPA]

27. Nope. Just BS

[cantbeserious]

28. Close Minded - We Now Know Of The Things You Are Made

eom

[HERVEPA]

29. Yes, I am made of a logical, scientific mind that calls BS BS.

[cantbeserious]

30. Yes - That Intransigence May Forever Keep One In The Dark

eom

[HERVEPA]

36. woo - not woo - woo - not woo woo - not woo

woo - not woo - woo - not woo woo - not woo woo - not woo - woo - not woo woo - not woo woo - not woo - woo - not woo woo - not woo woo - not woo - woo - not woo woo - not woo woo - not woo - woo - not woo woo - not woo woo - not woo - woo - not woo woo - not woo woo - not woo - woo - not woo woo - not woo woo - not woo - woo - not woo woo - not woo woo - not woo - woo - not woo woo - not woo woo - not woo - woo - not woo woo - not woo woo - not woo - woo - not woo woo - not woo

I just saved us some time. And your thinking will keep you in the dark ........ ages

[cantbeserious]

38. Good To Know That Your Objectivity Quickly Devolves To Rants

eom

[HERVEPA]

40. when you have some spare time, you might want to look up definition of rant.

However, I need to go to work now. Computer stuff.
No need to worry about what code I write in the program. The universe will make it right I'm sure.

[cantbeserious]

41. When You Have Some Time You Might Reflect On Non Responsive Posts

eom

[HERVEPA]

42. eom

eom (eom)

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. Have you read either?

The authors of the quantum enigma are physicists at UCSC.

http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html

[cantbeserious]

59. Yes - Both - The Physicists Wrote To Directly Discuss Woo

eom

[eqfan592]

33. If only there were solid evidence to support it, then maybe.

Given the lack of said evidence, I'll pass. Thanks, tho.

[cantbeserious]

34. Clear That One Has Hastily Made Statements Without Serious Reflection

eom

[eqfan592]

35. blah blah blah blah blah bullshit blah blah blah

eom

[HERVEPA]

37. eom eom eom eom eom eom eom

eom (really? Guess we couldn't tell from there being no more letters)

[cantbeserious]

39. Rather Childish - Objectivity Must De Optional For The Rational These Days

eom

[Progressive dog]

56. That has nothing to do with science- nt

[bhikkhu]

43. Yes, and the most important part of a hypothesis is that it can be falsified

or that it can be proven false. In most of the physical world, that's not a big problem, but in medicine there is the placebo effect to contend with. The waters are inherently muddy, and it takes a great deal of careful science to determine whether some effect is "real" or not.

The list of people who have been fooled by the placebo effect is very long, and nobody with any standing wants to get in that line.

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. Einstein went to his grave believing that quantum physics was woo. n/t

[struggle4progress]

47. That's not exactly true, since Einstein received the Nobel Prize for one of the earliest

quantization papers, namely, his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect

And in BL van der Waerden's Sources of Quantum Mechanics, you can find a very lucid 1917 paper by Einstein exploring the implications of quantized light emission from an atom

One should also note that de Broglie's wave-length is most easily suggested by combining a simple version of Planck quantization with Einstein's famous mass-energy equivalence relation: His 1924 Recherches sur la théorie des quanta (Research on the Theory of the Quanta), introduced his theory of electron waves. This included the wave–particle duality theory of matter, based on the work of Max Planck and Albert Einstein on light. The thesis examiners, unsure of the material, passed his thesis to Einstein for evaluation who endorsed his wave–particle duality proposal wholeheartedly; de Broglie was awarded his doctorate

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. Thanks, I wasn't clear.

What I meant is that Einstein believed that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and quantum entanglement was woo. Specifically, "spukhafte Fernwirkung"

[gcomeau]

57. No he did not.

This is a letter Einstein wrote directly addressing his views on QM in 1949.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/einstein.htm


It is a bit lengthy, but a very good read. And it makes his position rather clear. He had criticisms of the completeness of QM, he did not in THE REMOTEST POSSIBLE SENSE consider it to be "woo".

For example...

"Above all, however, the reader should be convinced that I fully recognise the very important progress which the statistical quantum theory has brought to theoretical physics. In the field of mechanical problems - i.e., wherever it is possible to consider the interaction of structures and of their parts with sufficient accuracy by postulating a potential energy between material points - [this theory] even now presents a system which, in its closed character, correctly describes the empirical relations between statable phenomena as they were theoretically to be expected. This theory is until now the only one which unites the corpuscular and undulatory dual character of matter in a logically satisfactory fashion; and the (testable) relations, which are contained in it, are, within the natural limits fixed by the indeterminacy-relation, complete. The formal relations which are given in this theory - i.e., its entire mathematical formalism - will probably have to be contained, in the form of logical inferences, in every useful future theory."

There is no possible way to read that and come away thinking 'Einstein considered QM to be woo"

[Progressive dog]

61. That's a big simplification of Einstein's thinking,

especially since he was one of the originators of quantum theory.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. It's not an oversimplification to say he was deeply ambivalent about the implications...

... of Heisenberg's and Bohr's theories of uncertainty and quantum entanglement. "God does not play dice!".

That particular strain of woo is now generally part of physics consensus.

[Progressive dog]

69. Woo is not part of main stream physics

and never has been.

[struggle4progress]

46. Lorentz's local-time transformation predates Einstein's special relativity by only about a decade

[La Lioness Priyanka]

48. not at all. a very open mind but a mind determined to find truths

regardless of whether or not they coincide with your personal beliefs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. There is less evidence intelligent alien life than evidence for a spirit realm.

If alien intelligence was ever common, then there would be unmistakable evidence of their passage. There would be automated listening posts on the moon, and the EM spectrum would be flooded with radio signals.

In a 15 billion year old universe, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Yet somehow, SETI is not considered woo.

We don't understand consciousness well enough to be definitive about anything. Anyone who claims to know otherwise is a fool.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Because of that attitude, 'medical science' claimed gay people were diseased

until 1973. They did not have evidence, they had assumptions that they called evidence because it served their closed minds.
A wise person asks 'but what if I'm wrong' very often while 'medical science' refused to question their own assumptions even when they were subjecting people to 'cures' for the 'disease' such as lobotomy, shock therapy, chemical castration and other shiny glories of science at it's finest.
And this is the problem. A community that is incapable of saying 'we don't know' and has to affect knowledge where there is none is dangerous and that danger is proven by their actions for generations regarding GLBT people. Too stupid and dogmatic to understand nature. Too self certain to know the difference between evidence and assumption.
1973. What grave errors might that community be committing today? Are they still jailing and institutionalizing people over their own made up theories deemed 'valid science'? We simply won't know until later. But the folks who instantly reject anything that is not approved by 'the scienctific and medical community' would have believed that being gay is a disease, and held that error unquestioned for generations.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it might as well be voo doo, we call it science, but it is really a guessing game until right at the end.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. Read this

http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7437/427

[on point]

60. Not 'closed', but rigorous, disciplined, logical and evidence based

[villager]

65. Based on your subjective "experience," eh?

n/t