Yes a prerequisite, that was my point. If you have no clue, you surely can come up with lots of wild ideas but the chance that they make sense approaches zero.
Some time ago there was a blog on the 'web that talked about this. About what you needed in terms of knowledge, experience etc. if you wanted a reasonable chance to really rock the establishment and contribute something new and better to what is already known, in whatever field. The list was long.
Take your own field. What is the chance that anyone, looking casually at some of your projects without really understanding the ins and outs, comes up with a complete new and improved way of doing it?
jan
I hear you, but I don't agree. Being official, god-given whatever doesn't make it objective, although the power it gives you may help to force the idea on the masses.
As Antoly France (iirc) once remarked, even if 50 million French believe something that is wrong, it is still wrong.
jan
You might be surprised ! Just because someone doesn't understand as much as some others, doesn't mean they aren't capable of looking @ things in a fresh way. Often it's precisely because they don't totally understand everything that they don't have a mental block holding them back from experimenting etc in ways more experienced people wouldn't. Therefore discoveries can & have been made by accident, for eg, AGB & the telephone.
the telephone as example of serendipity? - what technical history did you read?
its actually an example of highly directed research (and intellectual property theft)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_telephone - following the telegraph lots of people saw the "need" and became busy working the problem
its actually an example of highly directed research (and intellectual property theft)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_telephone - following the telegraph lots of people saw the "need" and became busy working the problem
Last edited:
In the past, I've posted Jeremy Bernstein's excellent essay, "How Can We Be Sure That Einstein Wasn't A Crank?" Worth reading. His basic point is that ANY revolutionary idea is based on correspondence.
In the meantime, Bob Park's rules (based on Langmuir) to separate fraud and pseudoscience are still excellent guidelines:
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
Look familiar?
edit: I was remiss in not citing the classic by Baez:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
This is a very naive view and completely wrong. The telephone was NOT invented by someone who had no clue about electricity, about materials and such. The telephone was invented after hard and long work and making sure all the details of electricity and materials were understood.
jan
In the past, I've posted Jeremy Bernstein's excellent essay, "How Can We Be Sure That Einstein Wasn't A Crank?" Worth reading. His basic point is that ANY revolutionary idea is based on correspondence.
In the meantime, Bob Park's rules (based on Langmuir) to separate fraud and pseudoscience are still excellent guidelines:
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
Look familiar?
edit: I was remiss in not citing the classic by Baez:
Crackpot index
There was another piece in EDN I believe, can't find it anymore. Something about what to do and how to prepare yourself for a life of revolutionary breakthroughs. I believe it turned out that the best preparation was study, study and study in your chosen field until you understand everything, THEN unleash your intellect on the remaining problems.
jan
SY,
How many times have I read the story about the suppression of the hundred mile per gallon carburetor by the oil companies in the past 40 plus years? Always the same story how the device was hidden so we would use more gasoline, never mind the fact that the thermal efficiency of a large engine just wouldn't allow for the claims that story still pops up today. As if the car companies who spend millions if not billions of dollars on fuel efficiency would not take advantage of that and be done with CAFE standards today and not have to spend years on aerodynamics and weight reduction in cars. The same holds true on magic devices like wooden blocks that will fix all the problematic room modes in acoustics and magic electronic devices that can remove only bad electrical electrons from a passing signal and make perfectly quite signals with a single passive device. Some people always seem to want to believe in magical powers, no matter the science that shows the impossibility of this in many different fashions.
Everyone knows that since ice is an expanded form of water that when the polar glaciers melt the sea level should go down! 
@ 11:00
How many times have I read the story about the suppression of the hundred mile per gallon carburetor by the oil companies in the past 40 plus years? Always the same story how the device was hidden so we would use more gasoline, never mind the fact that the thermal efficiency of a large engine just wouldn't allow for the claims that story still pops up today. As if the car companies who spend millions if not billions of dollars on fuel efficiency would not take advantage of that and be done with CAFE standards today and not have to spend years on aerodynamics and weight reduction in cars. The same holds true on magic devices like wooden blocks that will fix all the problematic room modes in acoustics and magic electronic devices that can remove only bad electrical electrons from a passing signal and make perfectly quite signals with a single passive device. Some people always seem to want to believe in magical powers, no matter the science that shows the impossibility of this in many different fashions.
Everyone knows that since ice is an expanded form of water that when the polar glaciers melt the sea level should go down!
@ 11:00
Last edited:
He did not have know the difference. It in the art not the science.Picasso? The guy wouldn't know a JFET from his elbow
Jan
And I was about to accuse you for withholding critical information.
George
“Giving believers something to do is very important to the success of a hoax,
because we tend to attach more credence to an event which represents our per-
sonal investment in time, energy and money.
…
A good hoax has to lead to specific tasks or missions in which the believers can invest
mental energy, physical activity and leisure time.
…
a good fabricator can create excitement by spreading around some artifacts
(photographs, letters, official-looking documents, tape recordings, bits of
physical objects) ”
So,
"How can I get involved?"
"Everyone knows that since ice is an expanded form of water that when the polar glaciers melt the sea level should go down! "
Unfortunately only true if there is no land-mass underneath (e.g. North Pole).
If the ice is on terra firma and then melts, the melt water will add to ocean depth.
Unfortunately only true if there is no land-mass underneath (e.g. North Pole).
If the ice is on terra firma and then melts, the melt water will add to ocean depth.
Common sense is knowing which end of a brush to hold (or in the UK, it is probably NVQ Level 2).
Science is knowing about capilliary attraction and surface tension, together with colour vision and pigment technology etc.
I suspect that in the old days an artist would, at least intuitively, know quite a lot of science as he had to make his own paint. These days it may be done for him, which may partly explain the modern divergence between art and science, which may in turn partly explain why much modern 'art' is so ugly.
Science is knowing about capilliary attraction and surface tension, together with colour vision and pigment technology etc.
I suspect that in the old days an artist would, at least intuitively, know quite a lot of science as he had to make his own paint. These days it may be done for him, which may partly explain the modern divergence between art and science, which may in turn partly explain why much modern 'art' is so ugly.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.