'A bunch of big egos' are strangling science

I just wanted to post this, because I've been saying this for the last decade, that the Status Quo, based on Egotism, is stifling Scientific discoveries. I even see this on ATS, where there are fundamentalists for Materialist based science, kicking and screaming to defend their view.

It's this Egotism that is preventing the biggest breakthroughs, and alot of times, it's the young bucks making the big breakthrough's, as the old status quo dies off

Microelectronics pioneer, Caltech professor emeritus, and all-around smart guy Carver Mead believes that the scientific revolution that began with the discovery of special relativity and quantum mechanics has stalled, and that it's up to us to kickstart it.

"A bunch of big egos got in the way," he told his audience of 3,000-plus chipheads at the International Soild-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC) in San Francisco on Monday.

Another interesting part:

To illistrate that point, Mead told the story of how Charles Townes, the inventor of the laser and maser, took his ideas to the leading quantum-mechanics nabobs at the time, Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg.

"They both laughed at him, and basically said, 'Sonny, you just don't seem to understand how quantum mechanics works'," Mead told his ISSCC audience. "Well, history has shown that it wasn't Charlie who didn't know how quantum mechanics works, it was the pontifical experts in the field who didn't know how it worked."

Source

But then, Townes used "materialistic science", whatever that is, to come up with the maser.

What do you consider 'non materialistic science'? Is that the one where you don't have to have proof?

reply to post by Bedlam

They are referring to "dogmatic" materialistic science. Meaning the "fixed" science that is supposedly beyond question.

Kinda like how "the earth is the center of the universe" was once beyond question.

Same religion, different name.

reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion


I don't think 'materialistic science' thinks everything is beyond question. However, some things have been proven true so many times it's sort of pointless to continue questioning it without good reason - like the laws of thermodynamics, for instance.

However, if the objection is that 'materialistic science' doesn't really go for telepathy, 12 stranded mystic DNA or 'radiant energy' then there's a reason, and it's because those things aren't real.

Interesting you would post this. You might be interested in a thread I recently did on "peer review".
Faith, Fantasy, And The Protean Peer Review Process
Be sure to read the responses by Extraeme and Byrd. Good stuff there.

I'm not so sure it's all big egos though. There are a lot of factors at work here. It's true that many a great discovery has been ridiculed by the academia of the time the discovery was made(There's a link to a list in my OP). And now those discoveries are accepted science.

But also consider how many quacks, and quack theories have been exposed. Scientists walk a fine line. I'm not absolving the scientific establishment, but I am saying we should look at things from a balanced perspective. Anyway, check out my thread, I think you'll find it interesting.

reply to post by Bedlam

It's difficult if one of the factors in the equation is belief of the observer. We haven't determined that for sure yet in a way that we can conclusively say whether it is influencing every experiment or not. We haven't really put that question to the test.

One group of people call "all that is"... "God"... and believe it is Conscious.
The other calls "all that is"... "Universe, etc.".... and believer it is Not Conscious.

So the real debate all along has really been... "Is All That Is"... "Conscious?"

That's what all of or research should really be going into... since talking is a lot easier than bulldozing.

But why are all the old teachings saying this *is* so discredited now in favor of the bulldozer method... in spite of the fact that all the old perspectives said that it's exactly where we'd find ourselves when pursuing this sort of divide and conclude mindset almost exclusively.

Hrmmm... *shrug*

Originally posted by Bedlam
But then, Townes used "materialistic science", whatever that is, to come up with the maser.

What do you consider 'non materialistic science'? Is that the one where you don't have to have proof?

WHat Ergo Said:

They are referring to "dogmatic" materialistic science.

what do I consider "non materialistic science" ..........the resulting state in wave collapse functions and aspects of Quantum Mechanics. The theory of non-locality of consciousness that is gaining some steam in some circles. Various other aspect as well.

Not to digress. Egotism sucks and stifles science, government, progress, politics, everything!!!!

I don't think 'materialistic science' thinks everything is beyond question. However, some things have been proven true so many times it's sort of pointless to continue questioning it without good reason - like the laws of thermodynamics, for instance.

Why is that a "Law"? Where did the Law come from? What makes up the confines that constitute this "law" and what are the loopholes? ...this is what we need to question and study. This is what the artcile is about. Not taking the "Laws" as set in stone, as this has set us back in various examples

S&F for finding the truth. It doesn't apply to all in the field but it does apply to some high up scientists with great influence.

Nobel Prize laureate and founder of quantum theory Max Planck said

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

I think it's a natural human instinct to fear something which has the potential to take your life's work and render it obsolete.

Originally posted by Klassified
Interesting you would post this. You might be interested in a thread I recently did on "peer review".
Faith, Fantasy, And The Protean Peer Review Process
Be sure to read the responses by Extraeme and Byrd. Good stuff there.

I'm not so sure it's all big egos though. There are a lot of factors at work here. It's true that many a great discovery has been ridiculed by the academia of the time the discovery was made(There's a link to a list in my OP). And now those discoveries are accepted science.

But also consider how many quacks, and quack theories have been exposed. Scientists walk a fine line. I'm not absolving the scientific establishment, but I am saying we should look at things from a balanced perspective. Anyway, check out my thread, I think you'll find it interesting.

edit on 2/21/2013 by Klassified because: grammar

getting ready to check your thread out now..... I agree about the "fine line" bit...

There's a guy right now who's been ridiculed by all of science for his Em-Drive, Resonant-Microwave propellant system, which could theoretically give us flying cars.... so everyone laughed at him, til Chinese scientists picked up his work and are saying it's legit ...and working on more breakthrough's with it.

They need cheap room temp, to high temp superconductor material to take the next step... and that's already being worked on too.

Interesting times. Eff All the Egotism

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
reply to post by Bedlam

 

They are referring to "dogmatic" materialistic science. Meaning the "fixed" science that is supposedly beyond question.

Kinda like how "the earth is the center of the universe" was once beyond question.

Same religion, different name.

Materialist science is dogmatic in nothing other than requiring mathematical consistency and empirical evidence.

So far, that has worked out excellently.

The "earth is the center of the universe" idea did not at all arise come from materialist science of course, as it is not justified by empirical evidence.

The current tenets of materialist science are not "beyond question"---you can "question" it but you have to also account for the enormous array of existing empirical evidence which lead to the current understanding. Almost all heterodox "YouTube theorists" are profoundly ignorant about this end of things, and when they themselves are questioned about experimental consequences they get huffy and complain about "dogmatic scientists" instead of considering the problem and answering honestly.

Originally posted by mbkennel
Materialist science is dogmatic in nothing other than requiring mathematical consistency and empirical evidence.

So far, that has worked out excellently.

I've watched enough physicists shift over to Wall Street to know better.

reply to post by dominicus


Note of course that another expert, Albert Einstein, himself had discovered the concept and derived the rate equations for stimulated emission of electromagnetic waves decades before the laser was invented physically. So Einstein beats Bohr & Heisenberg.

In general, I think Bohr & Heisenberg got their mathematics right, but I feel that Einstein has better philosophy and physical intuition (and he got his math right too).

(Copenhagen interpretation is a load of nonsensical bollocks).

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

Originally posted by mbkennel
Materialist science is dogmatic in nothing other than requiring mathematical consistency and empirical evidence.

So far, that has worked out excellently.

I've watched enough physicists shift over to Wall Street to know better.

That's a problem with budgets, not science.

Originally posted by dominicus
Why is that a "Law"? Where did the Law come from? What makes up the confines that constitute this "law" and what are the loopholes? ...this is what we need to question and study. This is what the artcile is about. Not taking the "Laws" as set in stone, as this has set us back in various examples

Because in every circumstance, it's proven itself out. You can keep beating your head on that rock, but it's stood the test of time and millions of challenges. Thus it's a 'law'. You are free to be the millionth-and-one challenger, that's the beauty of the system. But you'd have to have REAL proof, not what is stated as 'proof' on ATS.

Every sword needs a whetstone, every rose needs manure.

reply to post by mbkennel

Materialist science is dogmatic in nothing other than requiring mathematical consistency and empirical evidence.

So far, that has worked out excellently.

In the article, Mead covers this exact mentality with the perfect quote saying thus:

"Modern science started with an idea that was really given to us by Galileo," he said. "The idea was the isolated experiment. You took something and you very carefully sheltered from all the influences around, and then you were seeing the fundamental physics of that object."

That methodology, he said, served science well and led to tremendous advances. "But now it's holding us back from a deeper understanding of how the universe works."

The "earth is the center of the universe" idea did not at all arise come from materialist science of course, as it is not justified by empirical evidence.

One of the BIG problems with "empirical evidence", is the "stuff" that doesn't play by the rules. Various experiments, will have outcomes, that by their very nature, will never be repeatable. They are then shelved as "anomalies."

The current tenets of materialist science are not "beyond question"---you can "question" it but you have to also account for the enormous array of existing empirical evidence which lead to the current understanding. Almost all heterodox "YouTube theorists" are profoundly ignorant about this end of things, and when they themselves are questioned about experimental consequences they get huffy and complain about "dogmatic scientists" instead of considering the problem and answering honestly.

Mead covers this in his article:

A more holistic approach – if you'll forgive your humble Reg reporter from using that truly Californian term – was suggested by none other than the Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. As Mead tells it, Mach "took Newton to task. He said, 'Look, your idea of absolute motion is a stupid idea. Motion can only have meaning when what it is that's moving is moving relative to other matter in the universe'."

Einstein, of course, was mightily influenced by what the ex–patent clerk called Mach's Principle, which Mead explained as the proposition that "the inertia of every element of matter is due to its interaction with all the other elements of matter in the universe."

I agree it's a fine line, however the absolutes we currently adhere too, need to be reevaluated, and themselves questioned/studied in terms of them being, "relative" to something else.

All our "empirical evidence" based rules and regulation may only apply to this Universe, or dimension, if you want to get even more technical. All of which does not apply to others. The absolutes need to be put in check with the relatives.

Originally posted by BlueMule
Every sword needs a whetstone, every rose needs manure.

Every rose has it's thorn
Just like every night has it's dawn
Just like every cowboy sings his sad, sad song

I have met Charles Townes, he gave a seminar at a conference i attended, afterwards anyone could come and chat with him. Even through his own words he said that he didn't get much support from the big names in the field, they certainly didn't point and laugh and call him a fool. They simply didn't think that the device he thought he could produce was physically possible. Not thinking something is possible and laughing at someone is very very different from actually trying to suppress things.

And what happened? When Townes demonstrated the maser, everyone was amazed and believed.

What I see from the 'alternative types' these days is essentially alot of talk and hot air and not much actual hard evidence, so if anyone wants to use this example as a way to say "Oh look at the suppression of our alternative tech" then you are really looking in the wrong direction.


Besides this, there is *some* truth in it but it isn't always because of the egos so to speak, and not to the extreme suggested. The other thing is this... being scientifically gifted comes hand in hand with social and mental disorders. Scientists being 'weird' in comparison to 'normal' people is not just a funny stereotype, it is absolutely real. Now, this is were some of the issues come in. If you do get one of these big names with a big ego, they sometimes are the most impossible people to work with, work for and in very many cases they will be responsible for one big breakthrough and then for the rest of the career they are a detriment to the field.

Why?

Well exactly what is suggested, they believe in only themselves and their own ideas and anyone who challenges them comes as "how dare this person suggest that i am wrong or can have an idea that is better than my own"

Now there is however some light at the end of the tunnel... many of these big one name, one man shows are long dead and gone. Silicon Valley was home to one of the biggest names in the diode industry back in the day... William Shockley... if you look at any historical solid state physics papers, his name is all over them, he was one of the biggest names of the day and won a nobel prize for his efforts.

Was he a good person to work for? No, was his business successful? No.

There have been many a word written and a few documentaries made about history of that field, and all will say exactly the same thing. Shockley was an ego maniac who ruled like a dictator, the only ideas people were allowed to pursue was his own, and the only research people were allowed to do were not independant, he ran his lab and business as a way to massage his own ego.

Those days have for a very large part, gone now... because we live in a time when science research is performed largely by massive groups of people. This negates the single ego commanding everything and 'stifling progress' because the reality is, you have groups of 5 or 6 egos that cannot agree on anything, and actually help to spur everyone else on in their own ideas.

Originally posted by mbkennel
Materialist science is dogmatic in nothing other than requiring mathematical consistency and empirical evidence.

So far, that has worked out excellently.

I've watched enough physicists shift over to Wall Street to know better.

That's a problem with budgets, not science.

And who controls the budgets?

Same religion, different name.