Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Scott Mayers on 02/07/2016 10:04:30
-
I've struggled to find a science site that at least has some acceptance or capacity to disagree with certain status quo ideas, and it appears that this one does with its New Theories as well as That Can't be True sections.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
While I agree to most of science, I have certain contention with the extreme ends of the very large and very small and to the certification of the restrictive measures we are to comply to institutional standards in a type of 'elitism' that defeats acceptance of others merely out of being informally qualified or with the expectation to require such a high standard of invested education without the right to progress with the necessary skepticism needed for those of us who approach things foundationally.
Anyways, I DO have extensive and broad background but much of it is self-learned out of a personal distaste for the way I had been required to learn within our present-day schools that command we reverse the traditional approach bottom up. That is, we are expected to spend many years under the blind faith of institutions that mostly teach us through 'rote' learning now with an emphasis on teaching means to be clerically endowed before we are allowed to begin questioning things. Anything before a Masters Degree is focused on assuring one is pre-qualified before they are allowed to freely question things. With science, this burden is too high for many of us and is NOT an effective approach for all but those with better memory skills rather than logical ones. While it is welcome to have self-derived interest, we are not usually allowed to question the authorities UNTIL we fully graduate according to these institutions.
But this too creates another problem many don't realize: That the very extensive investment through the institutes provides more force to comply to an evolving style of knowledge requiring us to respect the foundation of ALL those who come before us in such a way that we tend to evade challenging certain past ideas or do so indirectly by feigning some 'novel' standards that appear to not threaten past authorities even where they DO.
My purpose here will be to collectively learn, question things AND to volunteer new ideas that I believe is most fruitful. I'm hoping that maybe this site and its own affiliation with Cambridge will be worthy to be here for and hope that others at least like my own contributions I hope to submit with less orthodox than usually expected.
Scott Mayers, Saskatchewan, Canada. July 2, 2016.
-
Welcome to the forum Scott.
Yes we welcome new theories - which includes any alternatives or modifications to current ones. For clarification on how we handle these see http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0. Being a mainly educational site we reserve the main part of the forum for questions on current science topics.
Although alternative theories are welcome don't expect an easy ride [:)] the process can be like peer review in that you need to make a good case and be able to defend it.
I hope you enjoy your time here
-
Hi Scot a warm welcome from me!
Regards
Alan
-
Welcome Scott!
I agree with a lot of what you have to say and am self taught as well due to my undying curiosity and love for science and physics. I understand exactly where you're coming from; though most of what I think and believe is rooted in accepted science, I do love to do thought experiments and theorize about those things that science has not yet understood. In fact, thinking about those things is what I do as I focus to fall asleep literally every single night!
-
Welcome to the forum Scott! I hope you enjoy getting your feet wet along side all of us!
-
Welcome Scott. I like what you have to say. Yes those with the highest degrees have great memories. And they repeat the same stuff over and over again. My own work is original and some Professors are interested in reading it while most are afraid to fill their mind with new thoughts. As on Professor emailed me recently, the science they work on consists of little bits and pieces of theory that they try to fit into existing theory.
Look at all the people who work on string theory and hate it. when i worked as an Engineer, the government asked for a project, they paid the bills. My company agreed to do the job. My job was to build something to meet the requirements. I had freedom to design how I chose but it had to meet the defined requirements.
The institutions define the tasks. They pay the researchers. Some people may come up with new ideas but the boss has to decide if anyone will do a new task. The government accepts some ideas but again someone must pay. Thus science is locked into ideas that are paid for.
I do my "Gravity and the Dot-wave theory" on my own. It is a hobby and a quest. It is like climbing a mountain that no one climbed before.
Good luck in your effort. You can always self-publish on Kindle for basically no money. My books used to cost me $6000 each for 1000 copies. Now it costs nothing. However I do not advertise and my sales are small but I do get some professors who I email and who request a copy. Yet these professors are looking for theory beyond the standard model. So there is a audience for my work and perhaps your work although it is not for money.
I made my living as an Engineer but my hobby was science. And it is a good hobby.
-
Thanks for the welcome here everyone. I haven't caught up yet on any of your own posts and will do so soon enough. I'm just glad there is a site like this. I should have thought to check overseas first since North America lacks the online enthusiasm in popularity for forums over Twitter or Facebook, two things I do my best to resist! (If you can't speak in tweets or simple pictures, it's hard to compete in such crowds.)