Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shugh
I am looking for well-informed, science oriented subjects who are either proponents or opponents of radical science.
|
Well, our fearless leader Phil Plait is an excellent person to talk to about this.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shugh
Your analogy of science as the supreme court is a good one.
|
Thanks. It really doesn't carry that far though. There are no "lower courts" whose decision the supreme court can just let stand....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shugh
I'm doing a part of my doc on the careers of Nikola Tesla and Immanuel Velikovsky. Science history seem to regard these men with a certain myth-making respect, radical scientists who were later vindicated, men ahead of their times.
|
Tesla's OK, but as mentioned above, Velikovsky's theories have been pretty much universally criticized and discarded.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shugh
I want to investigate whether it is possible to be ahead of the times in science...
|
Sure. I think this happens a lot. Einstein, Feynman, Gell-Mann, Weinberg... I think String Theory is often said to be a 21st Century theory that appeared in the 20th Century. (Well, now it should be coming due!)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shugh
Does science always "rule" in favor of the "truth"
|
History has its anecdotal missteps, but actually science isn't in the "Truth" business. All theories are contingent on future observation, which may necessitate modification of the theory.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shugh
...what does "winning theories" mean...
|
Currently broadly accepted by the scientific community. And of course theories come to be broadly accepted when there is compelling observational evidence to support the theory.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shugh
I would like to be as open in my film as possible to both sides of the argument, if there are even two sides of the argument on this case...
|
There is science, and then there is pseudoscience, which is unsupported, misguided, wrong, and misleading. Many if not most scientists think pseudoscience is detrimental and regressive if not downright dangerous. Obviously I don't think it would be appropriate or beneficial in any way to be "open" to the "side" of pseudoscience, which often has a selfish, ulterior agenda of some sort. Though many may not even think about it, scientists have the ultimate motive of benefitting humankind and aiding in the progress of the species - and
all species, for that matter.
"Alternative science theories" is kind of a difficult category to pin down. I'm not even sure if there IS such a category. Science is science. Theories are considered. Publications are peer reviewed, and many are rejected. It depends on the evidence. Some who get rejected turn their theory into a "cause" and publish their own book, etc., but there is usually adequate reason that the mainstream doesn't accept the theory. Are these now "alternative science theories" or are they personal causes carried on by people who don't accept rejection easily?
I think you've got a great opportunity to develop a tremendous documentary. Go for Sundance! ;^) Best of luck.