I have been motivated to start this discussion, by virtue of being increasingly frustrated with what I consider to be the flawed manner in which most of the advocates of alternative theories approach their topic. The intent is to avoid discussion of any specific alternative theory, except perhaps as some specific point applies to the general topic, but rather to concentrate on what makes an alternative viewpoint, hypothesis or theory potentially viable, and what renders it hopeless.

I will start by saying that I have no sympathy for, and will not discuss, any claim that 'mainstream' scientists hold to their theories for any reason other than that they believe them to be correct. The idea that standard theories are maintained by some kind of social pressure, or the need to maintain some standard theory, in order to remain employed, is nonsense. If this is used as an argument to support any alternative hypothesis, then that hypothesis is doomed to fail.

Standard theories are standard for a reason: They work. One common argument presented by the proponents of alternative hypotheses is that the mainstream scientists have overlooked some obvious fact that only the alternative thinker can see. This may be true in some isolated cases (though none in fact that I personally know of), but is so exceptional that it is not a reliable point to make, and is usually easily refuted. The adherents to alternative views would be well advised, I think, not to take the approach that the flaws in the standard are 'obvious', as it is almost never true.

Perhaps the most common failing I have seen here, a failing I've seen in every thread I've participated in, is the failure to understand the reality of the mainstream theory that is being criticized. When Einstein 'overthrew' the Newtonian view of space & time by his theory of special relativity, he did so by first studying 'mainstream' physics in intense detail. Only when he understood the 'standard' theories as well as anyone could, did he introduce his new approach. That's one of the reasons that special relativity became the 'standard' as quickly as it did. Amongst the current crop of alternative cosmologists, Jayant Narlikar is a champion of the Quasi Steady State Cosmology that originated with Sir Fred Hoyle, and a proponent of non-cosmological quasar redshifts. But he has studied the 'standard' cosmology more deeply than most, and understands it very well. Despite a belief in non-cosmological redshifts, for instance, he nevertheless mastered the standard interpretation enough to write a detailed and well received book on it (Quasars and Active Galactic Nuclei, Ajit K. Kembhavi and Jayant Narlikar, Cambridge University Press, 1999). And, despite being an 'alternative' cosmologist, he wrote an excellent review of 'standard' cosmology (An Introduction to Cosmology, Jayant Vishnu Narlikar, Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition 2002). The point is that he, like Einstein, has made himself a strong expert in the theories that he wishes to contest. Now, most of the people who post here are unlikely to study a standard theory with that kind of depth, but that does not preclude learning enough about the standard theory to see if the perceived weaknesses are real or not.

Another failing I think I see is the reliance on 'indirect' methodology. Historical tales or anecdotal evidence has its place, but neither can replace direct experience. If we see for ourselves that certain physical systems behave in a quantifiable & predictable manner, then we can discount claims to the contrary that are not based on equally rigorous observation. I think it is a particularly weak approach to claim support for a modern, alternative scientific hypothesis, by virtue of ancient historical records, without proper quantification of the purpose & sources. For instance, scientists have made use of historical records of eclipses to study long term variations in Earth's rotation rate. But in those cases, they have specific data as to time & place for an eclipe observation. But even then, they use the total set in a statistical sense, and do not use records that are insufficiently detailed. On the other hand, turning ancient descriptions of celestial artifacts into claims that modern plasma physics is all wrong, is a flawed methodology, doomed to fail.

Personally, I have lost much of my desire to take part in various threads, mainly because I don't have the time to deal with the heavy influx of thoroughly uninformed criticisms of the mainstream, which often leads to the alternative adherents sticking to claims tnat have already been factually disproven.

I have no problem with original thinking, and encourage it. People should explore new & alternative ideas, but not to the extent of denying the obvious. Supporters of alternative claims should at least have a sufficient grasp of the basics of the mainstream theories to know what does & does not make sense (and you must realize that 'common' sense does not always apply in the empirical sciences, where specific solutions to specific problems always reign supreme).

So, have I missed other failings? Overstated my case? Agreement? Disagreement? What do Y'all think?

__________________
Don't try this at home - We're what you call "professionals" - MythBusters.

I both agree with you and am guilty of many of the poor habits you mention. I think one problem is that those of us who feel we have an earth shattering idea get frustrated that we are unable to properly communicate our ideas or concepts. This frustration is often cause by our lack of knowledge about the real details of cosmology. So we often lash out and attack the standard model without true knowledge of it, poor wisdom indeed. I learned the hard way that this is not a good approach and you are only hurting any merit your idea may have.

My own idea for instance, I have learned that it does not destroy mainstream, but may serve to strenghthen it. I no longer attack the BB, but am trying to find if and how my ideas may fit in with it. Since, I have been doing so, I have found that I am learning so much more about the standard model as well as sharpening up my own ideas. I have also found that many "mainstream" thinkers are more willing to hear me out and discuss my ideas. I learn more from mainstreamers then others and have found this helps me strenghthen my case, and may oneday destroy it. Certainly if I am wrong, I want to know....however, ego is a powerful thing.

Your advice is great. It would be a shame if a great insight into nature were lost because of petty hostility and disinformation. But, mainstreamers should also keep all of this in mind and try to engage those with new ideas who may come across as overly contrary. But certainly I can see why some would just give up and eventually, I suppose one has to.

I know I have lots to learn before I could ever make a solid case for my arguments, and know I would have to convince a reputable astronomer of my iideas' merits. So hostility will get me no where but more frustrated and ignorant.

Good advice you have shared, indeed.

Words of wisdom Tim, thanks.

The very reason that I included this Alternative Theories section here in the forum is that I wanted a place where people could bring up ideas which are against the mainstream and have them tossed around by enthusiasts, experts, amateurs, and masters in the field.

Before you bring your idea forward, though, you have to be willing to accept that you're wrong, that you've misunderstood some aspect of cosmology, or physics, or whatever. Many of the experts in these fields have been at this subject for more years than I've been alive and have seen the theories attacked in every way imaginable. That doesn't mean they're right, though.

You could come up with a new insight, and new understanding that explain the observed phenomena better than the existing theories. I try to mention in my stories whenever a traditional theory is being challenged. At least once a month, new observations are forcing astronomers to completely rethink their long held ideas of [galaxy formation/duration of planetary accretion/environments for life/etc].

I would love to see the forum community develop a "best practices" approach that people can use think through their idea, propose it to the community, and even work to get it considered by the academic community. Astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs make regular and valuable discoveries, and professional astronomers are grateful for their contributions.

Pitch your ideas, just don't buy into them too deeply.

__________________
Fraser Cain
Publisher
Universe Today - Free space news delivered by email every weekday.

Thank you Tim, it couldn't be said better.
Altought I am on the "alternative side", I too get frustrated with alternative hypothesis from the blue, where it is obvious that the proposer did not study "standard" theory.

Dear Svemir,
Allow me to disagree with you and in a way also with Tim Thompson.

A large number of science enthusiasts do not have the resources to follow through an idea and one of the best alternatives for them is to share them on an 'Alternative Theories Forum' such as this magnificent website provided by Fraser. The other alternative is to 'kill' an idea by hiding it in the closet.

In my opinion IDEAS ARE SACRED and deserve a second look by the 'experts' in the field. Mr.Thompson is one such person and if he has the time to read some of the interesting titles 'we' expect him to contribute actively.

Wouldn't it be a pity if we spend a lot of time discussing this point rather than reading the ideas of the guys and dolls out there?

... and come to think of it I have to go browsing... Svemir and Tim... see you somewhere else.

with respect,
Stephen, your man from kibish

Tim, I have the utmost respect for yourself, and your point of view, but I genuine feel that you are describing an ideal. You ARE generally correct in what you say, that scientists are indeed honest, and do genuinely seek out the truth in an unbiased manner.

You are also quite correct in criticising the approach taken by people with alternative viewpoints, who do seem to take a non-standard approach to their work, are often under-educated on certain aspects of knowledge.

But, I believe that there are mitagating circumstances.

1. Peer reviews in its efforts to separate the wheat from the chaff, does sometimes loose a few grains of valid research. I have no doubt that there is a genuiine bais to keep the status quo, and that extraordinary ideas require extraordinary evidence. This may be acceptable, but it does put new valid work at an unfair disadvantage. If anyone really wants me to dig out some examples of papers which have been unfairly excluded, I will do so.

2. Money. It is very naive to exclude the influence of money on science. Very few people will turn down the opportunity of a $1-million dollar grant to (a) continue with their work, regardless of its ultimate value. (B) to research the health benefits of cigarettes © to find medicines to treat disease, rather than prevent their cause. Again, I can probably find some examples if requested.

3. Jobs. Once again, I know of scientists who have been fired for their beliefs.


I haven't provided specific examples, because I didn't want to debate specific cases. Hopefully everyone here is aware that they processes may not be ideal, even though the scientific method is arguably the best approach that this is.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

I can only speak from my interdisciplinary interests in historical catastrophism here, so what I say here may not apply to other claims.

Because of its very nature, there are certain events in history that will never be proved, and can never be scientifically tested. We'll never know whether King Arthur was a real figure, and he supposedly lived only a thousand years ago. What chance do we have to study events 10,000 years ago, especially if they left little of no evidence?

I have no doubt that historical tales, if they corroborated existing knowledge, would be "accepted". That is not the same as relying on the historical evidence. And if we find that a dozen cultures talk of, for example, a particuar astronomical event that appears to match that derived by astronomers, then we readily accept the historical records.

I am well aware that this is not scientific. The Bayeux tapestry supposedly depicts Halley's comet. It probably is Halley's comet. But this is not scientific proof. There is a chance, albeit small, that it could be another comet.

So I'm quite happy to use historical records as evidence, but not proof. And sometimes if the evidence is numerous, corroborative, and independent, they do beg some some very interesting questions.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

So far I have been pretty much in agreement with the ideas you expressed here Tim, thanks, it is a grea manifesto.

My exception is that I have not gone out of my way to really demand much accountability from the younger members who have unprovable ideas about things that can't be measured. I do tell them that we can't measure anything that tells whether they are right or wrong, but leave it at that.

People who seem serious about their science, and have the capacity to develop a relatively serious alternative need to live up to a realistic standard. Explore incomplete ideas if you want, but when doing so be very willing to own up to having taken a bad path. It might not mean your whole idea is worthless, but don't stick to things which have been shown to conflict with observations.

One of the most frustrating things in this forum is interacting with people who are so set on an idea that they 'forget' after a few weeks that some part of their idea was defeated. This is why I have stopped putting a lot of time and effort into analyzing alternative theories lately. My helpful work has been ignored or forgotten.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

The Flat Earth people held to their theory for a long time and wouldn't listen to anybody else.
Lots of people thought that we could never fly.
There are some that still deny that we have reached space.

Tim hit the target on the areas of frustration I have with most alternative theory.
Too much of it reads like fantasy. If a theory can not be tested, OK, gee whiz.
If a theory has been tested and and it is proven in error, test it again. Share your results. It's the confusing of theory with agenda that wastes everyone's time.
There seems to be a trend where a lot of people argue a point for the sake of a point, without doing much research.

I am facinated when a good alternative theory pops up, and I feel we need more of them to help us understand the cosmos, especially where conventional theory shows areas of weakness. But When an individual respects the scientific method, I'd love to hear their new theory. It might educate all, to varying degrees.

Hi,

Podkletnov discovered gravitational anomalies by accident in his lab & published his results, and was consequently blacklisted right out of the field.

I can't help but feel there is an ENORMOUS reactionary conservatism in science, particularly physics.

Unfortunately I think this stubborness is acerbated by the plethora of crackpot loonies out there spouting their half-baked personal Theories Of Everything...

Not many..One I might add that I have been harping on lately..
Pseudoscience proposes and defends an idea. Science deals with questions that are unanswered..

Mike Turner ( the assistant director of the NSF, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences) was quoted by Symmetry magazine : "Before you tell me what you want to build, tell me the questions you want to answer."

When my car breaks down in the road, three questions pop into my head.. Is it fuel...compression....or spark? Those along with a fourth..
What experiments answer those questions?

Pseudoscience will try and corner conditions and seal things undisproveable while science establishes the experiments to disprove hypotheses..Roger Penrose has prosposed an alternative explanation for entanglement and a corresponding beam splitter experiment to disprove it.

Your inputs have been very helpful and you have not hesistated to scold those of us who support the Standard Model when any of us fail to conduct ourselves propoerly in debate..I took your advice and many of us have been sending emails back and forth to tell each other to tone things down a bit or to back off entirely at times when emotions were getting out of hand..

Anton, any lack of response to you doesn't mean that no one is listening..I have printed up a number of your posts and given them very much thought. I have referred to them from other websites as well. You have set a very good example of how to conduct oneself in debate and I really appreciate your efforts..

Thanks blueshift, that's unexpected and appreciated.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Thanks blueshift, that's unexpected and appreciated. [/b][/quote]
Oh, and it's well-deserved too antoniseb! (where's the "thumb's up" smilie?)

I agree with many things Tim has stated, but this is a general comment I want to make.
I'd like to add that scientists should also be well aware of proposing "unprovable things", that's the problem I have with inflation, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, redshift equals distance, string theory and a bunch of other things. In every theory there is a point where we can't do more with our current technological standard. We should always keep in mind that nothing can be proven, only disproven. And sometimes it seems that people think that the only time the theories are completely correct is the current time. Just wait a few years and everything could be completely different. Keep your minds open to new possibilities and never assume.

Cheers.

My own experience, in another internet forum, is consistent with what Tim writes.

There was a time when this other forum tolerated 'Theory Development', but after a few years an open discussion was held on what its status should be, and the overwhelming consensus was that it added no significant value to the site, and likely tarnished the site's reputation!

Why?

At the time, I did an analysis of the ~1,000 threads in TD (which was not dissimilar to AT here in UT, except that its scope was all of physics - in the most general sense). These threads were an enormous drain on the moderators, and the 'return on investment' of their time and energy was ... precisely zero. I need to qualify this 'zero'; some 98% of threads contained such gross flaws - in terms of high school physics, or maths, or easily observable phenomena - that none of us could understand why the OP hadn't bothered to even read introductory physics texts. Worse, challenges to the OP's ideas were met with a barrage of responses ... almost NONE of which involved a defence in terms of
a ) internal consistency
b ) consistency with (other) mainstream physics (that was not being challenged by the OP)
c ) good experimental or observational results!

So what, I hear you ask, about the other 2%?

IMHO, there were about a dozen threads which brought to light subtle misunderstandings and differences in the way one could interpret the physics (and/or observations or experiments) - call these misplaced (i.e. they should have been posted in other areas, not TD). There was one idea (about a braking mechanism for the rotation of Venus, IIRC) that was beyond the expertise of anyone to evaluate; there was another (on the ZPE, the CC, and GR) that was poorly written, but ultimately we could tie it into an interesting, on-going set of research in the mainstream, and a post on SCC. I regard the last as an abberation - the OP had has his paper rejected by a reviewer, yet I suspect that if he cleans (cleaned?) up a few points and re-submits, he'll get it published.

(There's more, but I'll save it for later).

So, I can relate to Tim's frustration. And if anyone thinks taking an approach different from that Tim advocates, may I recommend that YOU set up an internet forum faithful to your alternative approach, and report back to us in a couple of years on your experience of moderating that website!

Pet peeves: Or, why I'm here and not somewhere else on the Web.

1) Paranoia, tantrums and pouting, equivalent to the seven-year-old's refrain:"Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I'm gonna go and eat worms."

2) Ad hominem arguments, in any form.

3) Gathering evidence in support of a theory-- always turns out to be an editing process. Inconvenient data are suppressed.

4) Cognitive dissonance. The equivalent of: "This theory/paradigm has cost so much time/energy/effort that it has to be worth it!" The vast majority of scientists are above this, but not all. Folks out in the fringes are more susceptible.

Good scientists welcome a reality check. Inconvenient data force the paradigm to stretch, or even shatter, and so much the worse for it. Next paradigm. They force the scientists to consider ways of expanding standard viewpoints to be more inclusive. Fortean phenomena don't trash the entire scientific viewpoint-- they merely point out the aspects of reality that might merit more investigation.

Kudos, all. A stunning majority of the members of this forum have there heads in the right place. Polite and respectful discourse is the rule here. You ain't perfect, but you'll do.

Best regards--Steve

__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabamus.-- Reymond

Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen.--Hilbert

Pick one.

So true, so true. Just look at the latest UT news! Scientists are finding evidence that Einstein's theories are flawed. There's no room for conservatism in physics & cosmology. After all, the universe is anything BUT a conservative place! Yes?

"We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity... Some day the piecing together of dssociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."
[H. P. Lovecraft]

For some reason, that got me to reflect on the conservation of energy.

Then I realized that I always thought of the universe as this vast conservative space, scattered with countless pinpoints of liberal fury.