Who are the scientists?

All right Id. let they're be peace between us. It's just that you have a way of talking down to people and this insinuation that you are unassailably right all the time. Try to watch that will you? You write much, but not often very clearly. How else could I, and if you look around you'll see I am not the only one who feels this way, have so totally misconstrued your remarks?

Now returning to my point about the untrained having good ideas that the pros may not have thought of - let's go back to my example of the layman who might point out that it is immaterial whether a perpetual motion machine can be built. A properly trained physicist hears 'perpetual motion' and starts snickering. Joe the worker stiff can counter that he doesn't care if the machine (the turbine at the city central electric plant) is perpetual or not, he just wants cheap and clean energy so he doesn't get socked with winter heating bills. As I said, for him, living in the practical workaday world, nearly perpetual would do. If the squirrel in the central wheel at the power plant slows down, poke him, light a candle under him, replace him... so your perpetual motion stops for two minutes sometimes as you change squirrels? Big deal! Joe wants cheap energy.

Of course, I am not seriously proposing a squirrel-based nearly perpetual turbines to power cities. I am just saying the layman sometimes has an eye to the practical, while the pure scientists, smart cookie though he is, may miss that there may be real-world applications to his learning that he misses spending as much time in the particle accelerator as he does. That's all!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not clearly? Get a clue. If you had a clue you wouldn't make such a ridiculous comment. What needs to happen is you paying attention. Id shares knowledge with you and you say it's not clear to you and you think it's Id's fault. You're not interested in clarity in my estimation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your estimation? You mean you broke into this thread just to estimate my interest in clarity? That's mighty considerate of you. Have you thought of responding to the OP are the discussion that has evolved out of it about whether laymen can really contribute to science in this day and age?

How about you slink back under your bridge now, but be sure to rear your ugly head next time two members are reconciled and decide to play nice. You've added so much to this thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree, but we engineers would all have these things powering our houses if it were possible.

The mistake you are making is not realizing that Bob, the properly trained physicist, also has a power bill to pay, not to mention a Nobel prize he'd love to win.

 

I know Bob is pretty sharp. I'm just saying Joe is not as dumb as he looks. You can have good ideas without training. Whether they're practicable is for Bob to work out.

Anyway, what's the general consensus reply to the OP? I'd say it's that the professionals don't care to be known, and the non-pros plain don't care.

Our work here is done.

 

We're not talking about "good" ideas, we're talking about earthshattering ideas. And you most certainly cannot have earthshattering ideas without training.

[edit] And this is a perfect example of why:

Sorry, but that's an indicator that you don't know what it is that Joe is looking for. "Nearly perpetual" motion is trivial and already harnessed: wind, solar, and hydroelectric. The devices that "Joes" are looking for are perpetual motion machines. You should learn about what a perpetual motion machine is and how it differs from "perpetual motion":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

See, the problem is that without training (and in this case it really isn't all that much training), Joe doesn't even know what he's looking for, much less how to identify it when he finds it.

 

This could definitely happen. The layman wouldn't need any real insight themselves, a 'fresh perspective' is all that's needed.

The mechanism for the formation of new ideas is well understood. I will try to explain...

Our brains use an 'asymmetrical information system'. Also called an 'internally organized information system'. A dictionary is an externally organized information system. The information contained within is arranged using a principal that is external to the information being stored. A dictionary for example uses the alphabetical order to arrange information. A = Apple. B = Bee etc. In this way Apples are only ever associated with other words that begin with A.

Our internally organized information system allows us to create association between different pieces of information. Usually based on our past experiences. Our minds contain vast networks of information that are cross-referenced internally. Further more, as our life experiences differ from person to person we each have different associations for the information we contain. For instance I may associate 'Apple' with 'Pie'. But if you have ever been unfortunate enough to bite an apple containing an insect, you could understandably associate 'Apple' with 'Bee'.

I hope that has illustrated how all the information in our minds isn't stored as an arbitrary list, but is instead stored as concepts that can be cross associated with other stored information.

The associations we make aren't necessarily logical and two different minds can make vastly different associations of the same data.

When we conceive a new idea, what is actually happening is that we are establishing new associations. This process is called 'Movement of idea'. The trigger for this movement of idea is provocation. Simply, something acts to provoke a new association in our internally organized information system. The experience can often be humorous to us. Some jokes work on this principal. 'A man walked into a bar'. Here the association with men and bars is... universal. The punch-line 'and says ouch!' is the provocation that creates a new association and sometimes this mental leap in association can be funny to us.

It can be very difficult to conceive new ideas precisely because we assemble information in this way. Once an association has been established in ones mind it can be difficult to realize new associations as our minds insist on presenting the established connection. We often call this 'being stuck for ideas'. Once a new idea or association has been formed though, it is usually obvious in hind sight and often leads to exclamations like 'why didn't I think of that before'. Having had the new idea the link become obvious, but until that link is made the association eludes us.

Some creative people who are employed to generate new ideas on demand understand this process and can use this mechanism to stimulate new ideas. Brainstorming actually works this way. Brainstorming, contrary to popular belief, isn't just getting together and hoping a new idea will somehow happen. It is a systematic, formulated process whereby each participant provokes the next.
Imagine: We both associate things differently. I have an idea (1). You have a different idea (2). By listening to your idea and fitting it into my information system I create a third idea (3). When I tell it you, you conceive yet another association (4). And so on.
This is why sometimes when you are discussing a topic with someone, and they tell you their ideas, a new idea pops into your head. It was provoked by your differences in association. Sometimes people think this is a sign that the other party isn't listening or hearing out their idea, but it is actually the natural response for you to form a new idea based on the information they give you.

Anything can act as a provocation to create movement of idea within an internally organized information system. Something like watching the patterns of water as you throw stones into a pond, or even an apple falling from a tree and hitting you on the head can do it. The provocation can be literally anything and doesn't have to be related to the information area that you are contemplating. A random word or even a smell can do it.

It is totally feasible that a scientist who is stuck for ideas could find provocation in a discussion on these forums (or any forum for that matter). It happens to us all, all the time. If you know what to look for you can see it happen to yourself and others. You can even harness the process to deliberately aid with movement of idea.

If you would like to know more I recommend you read the book Serious Creativity by Edward de Bono. You can also read more about it here: debonogroup.com/serious_creativity.php

 

Sure, scientists do that all the time amongst their own kind and associated disciplines.

Sure, it's not impossible but how many present day cosmologists/physicists do we have visiting this or any other forum?
In reality the facts are that scientists do converse and swap Ideas among themselves and those educated and learned in that discipline. And they have access to "state of the art" equipment and other incredible scientific instruments that are obtaining the data to foster those new Ideas.

Listening to your philosophical ramble, It's also not Impossible that when I open my front door this morning, I will be greeted by an Alien from the Alpha Centauri system, asking me to take him to my leader.

 

something to keep in mind,

the first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.[richard feynman]

 

I think this point has serious merit.

 

Except for the part about "This could definitely happen". Sure, lots of things could happen. But it has never happened and likely never will. In the meantime, why waste forum space and effort on it?

 

Well, I'd be dissant-interested... although I'd have to couch my comments very carefully so as to avoid letting the cat out of the bag. But it's true that I'm just one guy.

 

Ditto, ditto, and more ditto.

 

You're the one trolling nonsense in these threads. You seem to have an issue with scholarship in every post you make. Sounds like an ideological problem for you. That's why those who don't have an issue with scholarship keep bringing up your complete lack of scholarship.

 

Your posts are almost without exception negative and abusive. You interrupt threads in order to tell other people what they think and what they are like in your estimation. However, you rarely have anything original to contribute, and when you do it seems nearly impossible for you to do so in a civil way - that is, without raining down personal abuse and unwarranted attacks on other posters' education and sanity. I refer others to your profile if they care to be reminded of your history. Apparently you are capable of speaking civilly, but more often choose not to give even the slightest nod to decent behavior. Also I notice the word 'nonsense' comes up quite a lot, but you never deign to explain why you think something is nonsense, just that you think so. I would deem that trolling (but that's for the Mods to decide).

No matter how little you may respect other posters it is never all right to just say so, especially if you just jump in out of nowhere and ignore all context and the ongoing discussion. If you are not a troll, and I say that you are, you are certainly a curmudgeon and just plain either ignorant of or apathetic to the basic human social behavior.

The original question here is 'Who are the scientist?' (Not me, and I admit that)

And not Brucep - who prefers hit-and-run rudeness and incivility to objectivity and rational thought.

I have made OP-appropriate replies from post #2 and onward in this thread. What have you done except tell us how stupid you think I am?

 

Sorting out Joe's impractical ideas for him doesn't give Bob much time to do any real work.

Unless, of course, they are here to actually learn something.

 

Quit making a fool of yourself in the science threads. You haven't read any of my posting on science because you're to busy making a fool of yourself posting irrelevant nonsense in the science threads. You should be embarrassed by your lack of scholarship in these discussions. Disparagement of scholarship is something scientifically illiterate cranks do.

 

From my perspective I was responding to you with kid gloves on. You don't get under my skin at all, but evidently I get under yours. And that's with due restraint.

I may spend more words here than some posters, but only to provide some meat for folks to sink their teeth into, usually in a very superficial way that can be understood by high school graduates. If I ever post anything that you feel is too vague to understand, feel free to ask. It may be that my sense of what high school grads can follow isn't always calibrated.

It's impossible for me to say since you're being vague here. If you will point to what I said that isn't clear, I'll be glad to elaborate.

Let me stop you there. The laws thermodynamics prohibit perpetual motion (over-unity) machines. The snickering is because novices don't know this, and think that applied scientists have just hamstrung themselves with superstitious beliefs. The reverse is true. It's utter nonsense to believe the laws of nature can be repealed by "revelations" popping into the heads of the uninitiated. The professionals are snickering because such ideas are the perfect storm of naivete and narcissism. (Hence I stopped you dead in your tracks.)

If Joe had about a high school education, he could go online and read about perpetual motion (reminding him of the laws of thermodynamics he encountered somewhere in a science class). He could read further about the economy of scale of large power plants, and at some point he would recognize that the energy companies have a vested interest in minimizing expenses by maximizing efficiency. Eventually he would realize he was just being a dolt, somehow believing that he could outsmart the experts. Of course he's in the minority. By and large average folks of high school level or better do not have delusions of grandeur like Bob is having.

You can't always get what you want; you get what you need. If Joe was an American pioneer, he would have cut plenty of wood to make it through the winter, drilled a well, maybe put up a windmill, cut irrigation slews, etc., planted fields and started raising livestock. All in all, Joey Crockett would have multiplied his energy sources slowly over time, provided "the Brazos don't run dry and the newborn calves don't die" as the song goes. Yall. Of course Joey's going to need some "book larnin" to begin to understand how to improve the efficiency of a turbine, or of a solar cell, or whatever.

That would be more than infinitely nutty.

Except of course the example you gave is a dead end since not even child prodigy lay people can repeal the laws of nature. Further, since the world's universities long ago invented a field called "applied sciences" (aka engineering) which are entirely dedicated to "practicalities" your laymen would need to matriculate in one of those fields to even begin to understand how to address the issues with energy production.

Don't confuse impossible blue-sky dreaming with actual innovation, which (certainly for energy) requires mastery of fields like thermodynamics, chemistry and electromagnetics/electrical network theory. That's just for starters. The jobs involve advanced special topics requiring advanced math, and years of lab/field work. BTW you can get a picture of the kind of person you have in mind by looking at the ways NASA solved the energy needs of various space vehicles. It's mind-boggling. But of course they are seasoned experts with lengthy academic credentials. There's where you will find examples of the best of technologists, who innovate everyday---but while accounting for the laws of nature.

 

Okay. The emboldened sentence is a good example of you being unclear. Your unsubstantiated pronoun and your failure to say who is exercising restraint makes this sentence impossible to follow.

Wow. How delusional! You really do think your comments are meaty, don't you? Just...wow?

And what ever could you mean about high school graduates? Surely, you can't mean that you assume I, or many of the other forum members, have less than a high school education. As always, I don't know which is more astonishing: the level of your arrogance or that of your assumptions.

I wrote earlier:

And you wrote:

Oops! Shouldn't have stopped me right there. I guess it was time for you to make another assumption. Not you perhaps, but any high school student would understand that I am not and never have been taking perpetual motion seriously. It was a facetious example, genius! Then just in case any one was humorless and dull enough not to get the joke, I wrote later:

Sure there's a little leap of inference there, but that's nothing for those of us who have graduated high school. Have you still not understood? Nobody thinks perpetual motion is possible. The trouble is that in your arrogance you immediately leaped on the phrase 'perpetual motion' and apparently said to yourself,'Oh goody, aye kin shows off all my book larnin' to them yokels agin'. The use of hackneyed, unoriginal phrases like ' a perfect storm of' and your misuse of 'naivete' and 'narcissism', make it clear to me once again that you haven't any idea what you are talking about. You are too literal minded, and funnily enough you think that I am because I believe in God. You are trapped in the physical world because you think it's smart to believe in only that which you can see. A true scientist will tell you you are willfully ignorant. (But let's stay on topic)

"You stopped" me? "Dead in my tracks?" ...right.... you go on believing that.

Who's being a dolt? This paragraph is another fine example of how you look down on every one who is not yourself, and make this mad assumption that you ought somehow be included among these grand egg headed 'experts'.

"Vested interest in minimizing expenses by maximizing efficiency": Hot dawg! I'll bet a dolt like old Bob never thought of saving money! Only brainiacs with a PhD or two can approach such aerie heights of sensible thought!

Joy! You're quoting Mick Jagger, and at his most Biblical yet. Way to showcase your self-ballyhooed scientific credentials. Now in light of what I hope you've learned from this post: surely I don't have to repeat myself...

Tsk!, but all right, you are pretty thick: I, and all the other people you think you are smarter than: (the population of the world, I guess) do get the laws of physics and the other sciences you mentioned (congratulations on spelling them correctly) - common sense and our own native wit plus the education you think we missed out on tell us all this. The only problem here is you and one or two other arroganti have misread and misunderstood my remarks (I take no blame for this. It's not my fault if you are not intelligent or perhaps educated and socially cool enough to have a sense of humor, irony or sarcasm) - and jumped on my remarks to do as you always do: showcase your self-supposed mental agility and superiority - though in fact you lack the careful consideration, objectivity, rationality, native wit, ability to tell humor from serious shit, and let's not forget the humility to be any good at science.

As for the rest of your ramblings based on that same arrogant assumption: your whole pioneer days tangent and the rest of it is, as you say, infinitely nutty. I have reproduced it below just because I am that mean-spirited (sarcasm?) , and do wish to rub it in what an ass you've made of yourself.

 

These are all much better ideas than I saw (but was not supposed to see) in the double secret chatrooms of Physics Stack Exchange, which I evidently hacked after several of my best posts were somehow dismembered and assimilated. Over there, they seemed to specialize and were experts mostly in abusing their misbegotten moderator and poster status to actually obtain points for academic credit, and that evidently was their prime motivation.

One of the folks who at first appeared to be legit and with a specialty in group theory at the PSE turned out to be a 12 year old. What a joke that was. He'd as soon use the crack word as look at you, usually for no reason remotely related to the quality of the posts, unless it was one of his cohorts, that is. I didn't mind that aspect of his aberrant misbehavior so much, but I can only imagine how insufferable he will be when he gets a bit older and his amygdala starts maturing as it steeps in overdoses of testosterone. Not as amusing as the antics of Sheldon Cooper and friends, I'd wager.

Any ideas about how to prevent such things here? Do we require driver's licenses or something? How do we counter a tendency toward groupthink (which I worry about every time I see a thread started on this subject)? Diversity is good. Diversity of ideas, even better.

You have much better moderators here and, from what I have been able to discern, much more varied expertise also.