I hear about secret science and quantum underground.
The article mentions the "World Science Database" :
http://www.worldsci.org/php/
"
This database is dedicated to the latest in cutting-edge ideas in physics, cosmology, geology, and philosophy. Many of these scientists are not found in places like Wikipedia or known publications or textbooks."
(03-31-2012, 09:43 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]The article mentions the "World Science Database" : http://www.worldsci.org/php/
"This database is dedicated to the latest in cutting-edge ideas in physics, cosmology, geology, and philosophy. Many of these scientists are not found in places like Wikipedia or known publications or textbooks."
Why do you think this happens? Why must all these brilliant scientists find "alternative" venues for publishing and discussing perfectly legitimate research and theories?
(03-31-2012, 11:16 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ] (03-31-2012, 09:43 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]The article mentions the "World Science Database" : http://www.worldsci.org/php/
"This database is dedicated to the latest in cutting-edge ideas in physics, cosmology, geology, and philosophy. Many of these scientists are not found in places like Wikipedia or known publications or textbooks."
Why do you think this happens? Why must all these brilliant scientists find "alternative" venues for publishing and discussing perfectly legitimate research and theories?
The intuition is a powerful thing as far as its ability to suggest what is (or seems to be) possible and how things work (or may work). Form and function in the manifest physical are going to be analogs of what may be derived from principles operating on some higher and more subtle level of awareness. As experience builds, associations between their notions and what they see manifest are made (often through inductive reasoning) until the investigator reaches a point where they believe there is a compelling causal connection.
The intuition, however, is entirely supported by one's experience. In the area of mainstream scientific disciplines, this experience is largely shared and reliant on academic understandings/paradigms which is also supported by traditional/historical ideas. So if you were to come up with a 'promising' idea, and lacked that academic background, you'd be unable to effectively communicate it using the accepted paradigms and its particular language used to describe phenomena.
Sometimes the 'outsider' is actually not that brilliant. Sometimes, or even most of the time, they do not actually have an idea which is a better explanation that what already exists in the mainstream, and they have simply been unable or unwilling to do enough research required to understand the knowledge which already exists on the subject.
In almost all cases, the outsider: 1) lacks an ability to 'bridge' or to translate their understanding with that of the mainstream paradigms, 2) has not been able to actually test their theory for veracity (i.e. because the theory is not sound (or sufficiently falsifiable), or because it needs more development, or they lack resources).
Mainstream scientists are very busy people and do not have the extra time required to investigate claims from the layman or from one not trained in the specific fields and disciplines which the alternate theory attempts to address.
Thanks for the insightful response!
Perhaps if there were something like
kickstarter.com where these outliers could post their ideas for R&D and get grassroots support from other scientists who find them worthy of additional investigation.