For the alternative theorists:

All you have to say then is that "mainstream" means "the majority view" and you're off the hook. No need to get hysterical.

I do not "have to say" anything!

Yet, you, Aqueous Id, seem to "have to say" things! For example : why must you introduce words such as "fascist" and "hysterical" into a discussion on how "alternative theorists" present themselves or their theories?!
I do not "have to say" anything!

Yet, you, Aqueous Id, seem to "have to say" things! For example : why must you introduce words such as "fascist" and "hysterical" into a discussion on how "alternative theorists" present themselves or their theories?!

Yes, you never say anything, quite true.

And the hysterical comment seems to quite admirably fit the bill with regards to yourself.
"Anyone with" Mainstream "theories they wish to discuss should follow a few simple procedures:"

Quite logically the mainstream position is the default position, plus of course the validity of some theories such as the BB, SR/GR, are far closer to reality then others.
You understand?
Note from the Linguistics Moderator

I always gnash my teeth when I see the word "theory" used this way. Unfortunately I can't rant about it since scientists themselves misuse the word.

A theory (in science) is a hypothesis that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. Plate tectonics, evolution, relativity: these are theories because there is no reasonable doubt about them; 99.999% of the doubts are from crackpots, religionists, politicians with an agenda, and precocious teenagers who have taken a few science classes and think they now know everything.

What about that .001%? That's the one professional scientist who has a PhD in this particular science (physics, biology, etc.), has been working in it for 20 years and is regarded as a leader, and who has spent 5 years being bothered by what seems to be a teeny-weeny anomaly in the canonical theory. You won't see this guy on SciForums. He's doing his work the right way and has even already consulted with the scientist who presented the original theory if he's still alive, or if not, with the current leaders in the field. He's not going to shoot his mouth off before his hypothesis has been peer-reviewed and other scientists find it to be promising--because if he's wrong and spoke too soon, no one will ever respect him again.

Don't even present it as a "theory." As I noted above, it is nothing more than a hypothesis at this point. As I also noted, the word is often used incorrectly, even by scientists, who are notoriously poor communicators, especially when talking to us laymen. These are the guys who blithely talk about "String Theory," which is nothing more than some really cool math and a lot of arm-waving.

That's where a lot of wannabee scientists go off the rails: they fail to even try to explain why their hypothesis is better than the canonical theory. It makes so much sense to them that they don't feel the need to prove it to us.

Actually, the beauty of the peer review process is that in order to review another scientist's work, you only have to be almost as good as he is; you don't actually have to be in his class. This means that for any scientist there are hundreds of other scientists who are qualified to review his work. Unless he's Einstein, he can probably find a dozen of them within driving distance.

Although this is true (beyond a reasonable doubt ;)), it's not an effective way to communicate with the people you're trying to reach. What they need to understand is that what they are, in effect, attempting to do, is to peer-review Darwin, or Einstein, or Newton, or whoever developed the canonical theory they're challenging. At this point they should take to heart what I said earlier: You are not qualified to peer-review someone else's work unless you truly are his peer. You must have a PhD in the same science, you must have specialized in the same field, and you must have spent the last ten years going over his work and finding little nits that don't sit well. Otherwise you simply don't understand the canonical theory deeply enough to be able to challenge it.

If you are, you have an advanced degree, you've been working in the field for 20 years, and you've already bounced your ideas off of the modern leaders in the field, so your own errors have been corrected and you understand the issue even better now.

It takes a long time to learn that much science, so for starters he's going to be at least 40 with a PhD.

I think we have a total of about eight members here who have those qualifications. And isn't it interesting that these are the members who never claim to have found the flaw in relativity. Or heliocentricity. :)

Any dedicated science fiction fan can do that. What they generally cannot do is explain why they believe one of the parameters is wrong. Just because Captain Picard had a transporter and warp drive doesn't mean that these things can be developed in the universe on the other side of the TV screen.

Actually, "mainstream" applies to art, politics and other culture where taste, fashion and popularity are at play. It does not apply to science. If someone utters or writes the phrase "mainstream science," it is safe to ignore anything else he says.

Since SciForums is not an academy, and also since the people who own the website insist on making a profit (non-members are bombarded with advertisements), we can't run this place like an academy. A real academy would not even have a Department of Crackpottery and Pseudoscience.

Again, the people you're talking to are exactly the people who don't realize that you're talking to them. They're positive that they are scientists.

Now that's even better presented then the OP!!!
The assumption is that all posters posting in the science threads will at least make an effort to rely on best evidence, which requires that they adopt mainstream theories, since that's where the best evidence lies, unless there is some supportable reason to reject the best evidence.

Finally, the main problem with this question is that posters never actually have theories at all. Not in the scientific sense. They simply have wild ideas, usually either completely unfounded or entirely imaginary, which don't even qualify as alternative theories. But the site encourages them to keep thinking, by awarding them probationary status as "alternative theorists" -- which is entirely well intentioned. It's just chronically abused because of the high incidence of cranks.

Two very important points right there.
The first one, mainstream is mainstream, because logically that is where the best evidence lies.
eg: You are in a strange land: you are trying to find a particular town and come to a fork in the road: 100 people are sitting beside the road playing scrabble: You ask them the right way to get into town: 99 of them point one way, one lone person points the other way: Which way do you take?
Yes, there is a non zero chance the lone person maybe correct.

The second point I'm sure we can all relate to...speculation...nothing wrong with speculation/Imagination..great stuff!
It's when those afflicted with delusions of grandeur or some fanatical anti science/mainstream bias, insist on claiming over riding rights over well supported incumbent theories.
I speculate that the BB singularity, is the arse end of a BH from another universe...I speculate that BH singularities lead via wormholes/ERB's to out pourings into new Universes.
But they remain speculative ideas of mine...certainly not any theory changing the course of 20/21st century cosmology.
In my Opinion>....
Anyone with alternative theories they wish to discuss should follow a few simple procedures:

[1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite accompli" It most certainly isn't:

[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...

[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:

[4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:

[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:

[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support:

[7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it.

[8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:

[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:

[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:

[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.

[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories:


There are probably at least three threads of alternative stuff currently under discussion, that adhere to none of the 12 points.
Cesspool material?
So are you bound by these same points then ?
That isn't the issue that was on the table. The issue was that whether something adheres to those 12 points or not is not a matter of opinion: either it does or doesn't. Whether those 12 points are reasonable and should be adhered to is a separate question. Like I said: you have a lot of trouble with logical thought.

But to answer your irrelevant question, yes, I do: it is a good description of how scientific thinkers should act.
Hence the fundamental problem with a greater or a more advanced understanding in science , logically
That's gibberish, but I think what you are trying to say is that the scientific way of thinking inhibits scientific advancement. That's a common complaint of crackpots, but it is just dead wrong. Scientific thinking - the scientific method - helps you focus on what is likely to yield the best results. It promotes advancement, it does not inhibit it. And that's not opinion, that's historical fact: no other way of figuring out how the natural world works has been anywhere close to as successful as the scientific method/process.
That isn't the issue that was on the table. The issue was that whether something adheres to those 12 points or not is not a matter of opinion: either it does or doesn't. Whether those 12 points are reasonable and should be adhered to is a separate question. Like I said: you have a lot of trouble with logical thought.

How so ?

But to answer your irrelevant question, yes, I do: it is a good description of how scientific thinkers should act.

But question is , do they , these scientific thinkers
I mentioned anti-gravity

Probably research being done into it with NASA already I suggest...
What's the agenda you're pushing?
Again, if you have a better system, spill it out.
This cry of anguish from our anti everything brigade is certainly loud and boisterous even though in the minority.
I suppose what they say about empty vessels making the most sound, does ring true.
Science is not a democracy.
Science isn't a form of government. It can't legislate, although it does record the laws of nature as revealed by something similar to forensics. The only offices it holds even loosely equivalent to an executive branch are research, education and of course all of the applied fields from engineering to medicine and so on. But there is a strong judiciary, operating under a single doctrine: the laws of nature can not be repealed. That makes science more like the supreme court of a country ruled by a tyrant. :eek: In this case, it is not a single body presiding over a few districts but rather a network of courts split into hundreds of jurisdictions by society and field.

When a hypothesis has been tested in every conceivable way without being falsified, it is then submitted to the scientific community for peer review.
"Jury of peers" in the archaic sense is loosely the same, although "panel of judges" is closer. One of the central fallacies of pseudoscience is that it does not understand the difference between authority and power. The empaneled judges earn their authority to decide questions of natural law through demonstrated achievement. Here's where science exists as a democracy. Any person anywhere in the world, who has reasonable access to a good education, is free to ascend to a position of academic excellence. Behind the iron curtain of pseudoscience, the reverse is true. Any person who has earned that authority is either ridiculed and abused, or else they are redacted, quote mined and twisted in order to paint religion with that thin patina of authority that pseudoscience uses to seize control of vulnerable minds.

Depending on how extraordinary it is (e.g., if it claims to falsify a canonical theory, rather than simply elaborating and expanding it as Einstein did to Newton's Laws of Motion), the peer committee could be very large.
It's pretty hard to imagine a scenario in which one theory could falsify another. More than likely some data point is collected which calls a particular theory into question. Galileo's discovery of the moons of Jupiter completely unhinged the Geocentric Theory, yet it took about a lifetime for Newton to discover that gravity was the underlying cause.

Special Relativity does expand on the Laws of Motion insofar as it informs us about contraction and dilation, which, although they have nothing to do with the Laws of Motion per se, they have everything lot to do with the effects of motion upon observation. You could also say that general relativity expands on the Law of Gravity, noting that motion is required to create the second reference frame (i.e, it has to physically depart from the observation frame). That, by the way, illustrates a connection between the Laws of Motion and the Law of Gravity, although strictly as it concerns observation.

It might even be subject to a second level of review by people who insist on having a say--a virtual committee.
Once someone publishes something, whether it amounts to theory or not, that democracy you reject engages. Maybe we should call it a "democracy of opportunity". Anyone is free to argue for or against anything ever published. The only caveat is that it takes equal or better authority to overturn a matter of settled science. This is analagous to the way courts are very slow to overturn dicta--decisions considered settled law--such as whether minorities and women have the same rights as white males. In science we call these first principles. They simply can't be reversed due to the forward arrow of progress. But they remain equally falsifiable nonetheless. Like dicta, as the prevailing theory withstands the test of time, it sinks closer and closer to that bedrock we call "established science".

The whole point is to ensure that the purported theory has the approval of the scientific community--at least the people who have been members long enough for their skill and judgment to be trusted.
That's the ticket.

When it starts showing up in high school textbooks, the only people who object will be the anti-scientists in their churches.
Ironically, evolution shows us how the defense mechanism passed from earlier primates to the religious ones who think that this is the way to protect their brood. See no evil, hear no evil . . .

It's not a "majority view." If any respectable scientist has an objection, he will be heard.
I don't see the connection there. The fact that a majority had adopted general relativity did not preclude the minority from insisting that the first GPS system allow for the possibility that GR may for some reason not apply. So they flew it with an insurance policy they never needed. I would have hated to have been on the losing team, but other than that I don't see how you connect these. There are some acclaimed scientists who sometimes report their concerns that the minority view isn't given a fair hearing. But stand outside of any courtroom and you'll hear the same thing any day they are in session.
I do not "have to say" anything!
Yes, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.

Yet, you, Aqueous Id, seem to "have to say" things!
My posts are entirely voluntary.

For example : why must you introduce words such as "fascist" and "hysterical" into a discussion on how "alternative theorists" present themselves or their theories?!
As I said:
Aqueous Id said:
. . . the word "mainstream" has become mangled, in the lexicon of the anti-science fiends, to convey political impact, such as "fascist" or "authoritarian". That's not the literal meaning of the word, so to be clear it would be better for you to say "fascist" if that's what you mean.
Yes, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.

My posts are entirely voluntary.

So...Aqueous Id, why does it seem that you "have to introduce", on an "entirely voluntary" basis, words such as "fascist" and "hysterical" into a discussion on how "alternative theorists" present themselves or their "theories"?!

As I said:

As I now say:

Goodbye, Aqueous Id!
When I was a young engineer, I had access to plenty of resources within a complex of government funded facilities, which included a US National Lab. I had a fully stocked lab, a separate pilot plant area and access to any skilled craftsman and resource needed to build anything I could imagine and design. What I also had, was a back door to publishing. Anything that is done in such an environment is automatically published. In fact, publication was part of the job and done on a timely basis to make sure there is progress being made. Others need the data, and want to see it formally written up.

Because I was innovative and could always generate new ideas and get results with my resources, I went on my own and naively assumed publication would be just as easy if you had good ideas. The opposite was true. A solo researcher, who was not hooked into a big organization, does not have the same back door access to publication. Someone on the outside, will have a much tougher uphill battle. I experienced both and came to realize one can stack the deck to form consensus but simply filling the back door with one side.

What the ten steps to alternative theory does is add even more work to those who already have a disadvantage. Consensus is much easier, since it is not exactly based on equal access for all, or equal resources divided between the main alternatives, or equal back door to publication , or even equal peer pressure and mudslinging. Consensus is as much about strategy and politics as science. Aliterate theories can impact the political divide, by raising doubt that might level the playing field to new points of view.

Let me give an example. Darwin formed his theory for evolution based on his trip to the Galapagos Islands. He drew the best curve through all the observed data, leading to a useful theory. Say Darwin, instead of Galapagos, had gone to Yellowstone National Park to gathers his thoughts. This is a totally different data field of life in flux of change. In Yellowstone, they had a huge million acres forest fire. Instead of a million years, in a few years it is now teaming with an entirely new distribution of flora and fauna. The best curve through this data field (fast change) is different from Galapagos (slow change).

This is an alternative theory and shows how doing by the book science can change if we change the data field. Instead of a discussion, the ten rules is a way to add extra obstacles to avoid the discussion, since it might change things. The main goal of Darwin was a science based way to replace religion POV. The Yellowstone data field would have work to this ends, just as well. The consensus of today, sees this in a modern political way and will resist, with extra obstacles