SPLIT: Magidgique Discussion from Intro Thread

[LMNO]

And there's one thing, how can we know for sure that all these things that were shoved under the rug by bad politics will eventually surface to advance scientific progress?

Because as we progress, we need to find answers to things that confuse us.  Science is like an archipelago -- many tiny islands in a sea of ignorance.  We know A, and we know B, and then we try to figure out how the two can possibly be related.  Because we're trying to figure out how the universe actually works, then if we don't get it right, the universe will show us by fucking up our predictions.  Eventually, we'll figure it out, and correct ideas that were previously ignored will be brought to light because, and this is the important part, it's the right way to describe the universe.  Later, someone will be translating an old book about non-linear optic from Russian to English, and discover that someone had already come up with an idea people are just now getting around to.

Can it be that some alternative scientific theories got ignored, and then lost in time forever?

Only if no one will ever explore that aspect of the universe ever again.  Which I doubt.  But that's not really an accurate answer.  Yes, some "alternative theories" will be ignored and lost, because those theories might be wrong in some way.  The theory that survives is the correct theory.  If there is an "alternate" theory that resolves more confusion that previous theories, then that becomes THE THEORY, and the others become "alternate".

Cause there's really quite a lot of alternative scientific theories and pseudoscientific theories that have a sort of kernel of "might be on to something" in them, but because of politics and/or their inventors being crackpots, nobody is researching them.

If there is a kernel of truth there, then current fields of study will eventually reveal them.  It might not be the direct route, but I can't think of an "alternative" theory that can't be covered by one branch of science or another, or a combination of them.

And additionally, are there already wonderful scientific ideas that have been forgotten, that their inventors took with them to the grave? Didn't Nicola Tesla do a bunch of those? Maybe it's all pseudo scientific hogwash, correct me if I'm wrong. No really, please do, I'd like to be comforted on that topic

Maybe.  But the beauty of science is, they won't stay hidden forever.

[Cain]

You know, TGRR put "it has to survive peer review" as a con, which could be read as saying he agrees with Trip's position that peer review is not always a positive process.

[LMNO]

I think what trip and I are both saying is not a problem with the scientific method, but the scientific process.

Let's not pretend that Peer Review always produces Truth. The creation of facts is also a social process, and is, as such, muddied by monkeys.

Like democracy -- it's the best thing we've come up with, but it's not perfect.


please do not interpret this as HURR SCIENCE IS BAD

Peer review eventually weeds out the garbage, though it may take time (Andrew Wakefield, for example).

Religions and Mahdjgickque have no mechanism to do that at all.

Immediate peer review may not be as efficient as one would like.  But because of the way science behaves, it will eventually do it's job.

Peer review isn't just a board of Elites judging a new idea.  The whole concept of Peer Review is "think for yourself".  The scientist says, "hey, i have this new idea! Here's how I did it, and here's how you can do it yourself!"

And as time passes, more and more people will try the idea out, and see if it works.  If it doesn't work, they won't use it.  If it does, they'll try to link it up to established theories in order to resolve confusion.  If that works, then the idea is justified, regardless of what a panel of "experts" said 20 years ago.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You know, TGRR put "it has to survive peer review" as a con, which could be read as saying he agrees with Trip's position that peer review is not always a positive process.

Peer review is a human process.  It can be corrupted, but the thing is, someone out to make a name for themselves will always eventually poke a hole in any bullshit that leaks through.

It is different from politics, religion, magick, and economics, in that poor performance is always eventually cleared away.  

That's why I made the three comparisons I made earlier.  Economists, for example, have no penalty for failure, even insofar as reputation goes (Laffer is STILL endlessly quoted by RWNs).  Crack dealers have an immediate and rather final penalty for failing to understand and predict basic economics.

The same goes for magictards like Crowley, etc.  There's no penalty for bullshit...In fact, it's rewarded.  Conversely, ask Andrew Wakefield how his career as a scientist is coming along (Short answer, it isn't.  He's 169% witchdoctor now, playing to the conspiracy theorist set).

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Immediate peer review may not be as efficient as one would like.  But because of the way science behaves, it will eventually do it's job.

This.

[Faust]

The same goes for magictards like Crowley, etc.  There's no penalty for bullshit...In fact, it's rewarded.  Conversely, ask Andrew Wakefield how his career as a scientist is coming along (Short answer, it isn't.  He's 169% witchdoctor now, playing to the conspiracy theorist set).

Hey, there's no shame in that and the pay is good. I intend to retire as a quack like wakefield or Dawkins playing the popular note for mass appeal.

[AFK]

The thing with peer review is that peer review never ends with an exclamation point, nor does it end in a period.  Hell, it doesn't end in a question mark.

It ends in question marks.

In some ways, it can be as infuriating as a season of Lost.  You get a little nugget of an answer to your scientific investigation, but they you get all of these other questions along with it.  And if that science was good, it will inspire 5 different teams of science spags to take up the 5 questions you just dug up. 

This will include questions derived from research that seems suspect or research that seems to be an outlier compared to the progress made thus far.  Between that and replication, science will eventually sniff out the "cold fusions" in the field and expose them.  And let's not forget that "cold fusion" itself was exposed and dealt with fairily quickly.  Humans certainly can corrupt individual studies, but it is much harder for them to turn and nefariously corrupt the body of understanding in any particular area without buying off and brainwashing tons of scientists. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The thing with peer review is that peer review never ends with an exclamation point, nor does it end in a period.  Hell, it doesn't end in a question mark.

It ends in question marks.

In some ways, it can be as infuriating as a season of Lost.  You get a little nugget of an answer to your scientific investigation, but they you get all of these other questions along with it.  And if that science was good, it will inspire 5 different teams of science spags to take up the 5 questions you just dug up. 

This will include questions derived from research that seems suspect or research that seems to be an outlier compared to the progress made thus far.  Between that and replication, science will eventually sniff out the "cold fusions" in the field and expose them.  And let's not forget that "cold fusion" itself was exposed and dealt with fairily quickly.  Humans certainly can corrupt individual studies, but it is much harder for them to turn and nefariously corrupt the body of understanding in any particular area without buying off and brainwashing tons of scientists. 

The system grinds slowly, but it grinds fine.  That's the beauty of it.

It isn't for the impatient, though.

[LMNO]

I know this is sort of like demanding proof of a negative, but I want to come up with examples of horrendously wrong scientific beliefs (based on actual scientific method) where turned out that an unsupported belief was correct.

I'm not talking about scientific beliefs that stemmed from improper thinking, or religious dogma.

I'm not even sure Newtonian Mechanics qualifies, because after decoherence, it really does work for sufficiently large objects.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I know this is sort of like demanding proof of a negative, but I want to come up with examples of horrendously wrong scientific beliefs (based on actual scientific method) where turned out that an unsupported belief was correct.

I'm not talking about scientific beliefs that stemmed from improper thinking, or religious dogma.

I'm not even sure Newtonian Mechanics qualifies, because after decoherence, it really does work for sufficiently large objects.

Newtonian mechanics is a prime example of the system working.

It was a partial answer, with a few bugs...and those bugs were worked out by later work.

[Cramulus]

would you count Telarus' notes about the heliocentricity/geocentricity argument? Geocentricity was strongly supported by the contemporary scientific framework and still prevailed for 2000 years after heliocentricity was suggested.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

would you count Telarus' notes about the heliocentricity/geocentricity argument? Geocentricity was strongly supported by the contemporary scientific framework and still prevailed for 2000 years after heliocentricity was suggested.

Geocentricity preceded the implementation of what we now call the scientific method.

[LMNO]

Also, wasn't the main argument agaist heliocentricty a religious one? 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, wasn't the main argument agaist heliocentricty a religious one? 

Yep.  Had to do with an old testament passage about the sun standing still in the sky for a while.

So the Catholic church supported Aristotle, until some wiseass named Galileo came along and spagged everything up.

[Cramulus]

In my understanding of the argument, which is based on reading Telarus' posts, geocentricity was based on the current understanding of physical laws.

When you go back that far though, the line between scientific and religious statements are blurry. But they were still using empiricism. This doesn't make that thought unscientific, it just starts its line of reasoning from a different set of assumptions. Telarus could answer better.