This essay considers the influence of current scientific theory on the interpretation of extraordinary data relevant to anomalies, which are phenomena that cannot be explained by current theory. Historically, anomalies are great opportunities to encounter new science, and as such, they are often at the center of scientific revolutions. However, anomalies in the context of overconfidence in current theory can result in impassable bottlenecks seriously impeding scientific progress. Understanding these bottlenecks and guarding against them could dramatically change the pace and direction of scientific progress.
Breaking Through the Anomaly Bottleneck: Can Science Become Curiouser and Curiou
4 days later
I enjoyed your essay, and will definitely be checking out Kripal's archive, though I fear I might get trapped in a rabbit hole and miss out on sleep!
Do you have any thoughts on _how to pragmatically foster curiosity/willingness to take risks? What incentives do you think might be required? I ask this because it seems to me that there are whole fields where researchers, especially younger ones, seem to be trapped within ever-shrinking domains, neither having the time nor the resources to peer over the edge of their particular silos.
8 days later
Great Essay, straight to the heart of the issue. Well done. I agree entirely with every word you wrote, and refer to the key points in my own essay. Great range of quotes as well. But what do we DO about the problem!? I've found most may accept the undeniable truth of the points but ignore them and carry on regardless!! I decided on a new approach this year, to simply state the new physics ('passed on subliminally') of an alien higher intelligence, all 99% rigorously falsified with data and logical interpretation, but 100% certain to be dismissed by most in the way you identify! Cest la vie! Nice job, great and pertinent approach, and very well written. Top score coming.
17 days later
Thank you so much AquaMartin (if that is your real name, LOL) for your kind comments! I am not sure what can be done to foster curiosity and the willingness to take risks in research. The funding mechanisms certainly don't encourage risk-taking, nor do they support scientists who are too far ahead of the pack in their thinking in accepted fields of study. That alone is a big problem.
But here I am talking about something bigger, where I am suggesting that scientists should be allowed to study things that we are not allowed to study---the things that we are told "everyone knows is nonsense." The fact is that many of these taboo phenomena have been studied by scientists, and it is not all nonsense. (One cannot prove something is nonsense!) How much more would we know about the universe and our place in it if we were allowed (by other scientists) to study these things?
Twenty years ago, I learned about earthquake lights (from NASA scientist Friedemann Freund) as well as a possible theoretical path toward earthquake prediction. To this day, the US Geological Survey states that the reality of earthquake lights is disputed and that the problem of earthquake prediction is unsolvable. Not only is earthquake prediction not funded, it is not taken seriously by the scientific community. You can't even publish a serious paper on the topic. Yet in those twenty years, a MILLION people have died from earthquakes. How is this not a SIN? At the very least it is a enormous failure on the part of the scientific community (a community which struggles daily to convince the public that their way of doing things is reliable).
I think that the path toward progress involves scientists adopting a dose of humility by accepting that there are things that we don't know. And in doing so, accepting that it is OK for SOME scientists to decide to study those things by applying the scientific method and sharing their findings with others. Should some of that research be funded? Certainly! But the first step is for the scientific community to ALLOW (even encourage) serious discourse on ALL TOPICS of serious inquiry.
Accepting that there are things we don't know is a first step.
Accepting that scientists don't handle anomalies well is a second step.
The purpose of this essay was to raise awareness of both of these facts in an attempt to compel scientists to do better.
Thank you so much for your kind response fellow Lion!
I expect that my response to AquaMarten addresses what one might DO about the problem.
"Accepting that there are things we don't know is a first step.
Accepting that scientists don't handle anomalies well is a second step.
The purpose of this essay was to raise awareness of both of these facts in an attempt to compel scientists to do better."
I wish that there was more that could be done.
Kevin Knuth I enjoyed reading your essay! The basic premise that anomalous events and unusual theories do not get the attention they (sometimes? often?) deserve is something I totally agree with. No one is asking for scientists to spend all their time thinking about anomalous things, but some scientists may be interested in doing so for some part of their time, and they should be encouraged to do so. In my own essay "Efficient funding produces better science," I have suggested a funding model which could allow some funding for unusual research -- you might wish to take a look at it and also give a rating, as I have done with yours.
Your examples of extraordinary data and the frequent unwillingness to research it, for example earthquake lights and UFO phenomena, involves totally missed opportunities for great discoveries, if not great strides in scientific progress. In "Global Externalities and a new science," I also deal with UFO observations of seemingly impossible performance by military observers. As you say "if any aspect of any one of these dismissed extraordinary hypotheses discussed here is true, this would lead to one of the greatest revolutions the sciences have ever seen." You cite great example in many areas. I also decry the overwhelming influence of corporate power and money in making science agenda-bound and influencing scientific concepts. In the few days lefts perhaps we can both address the deficits in rating brought by this new anonymous feature of these contests.
Hi RustLion.
Totally agree with you!
You have to think big!
It is known that Newton determined the gravitational coefficient through the parameters of the orbits of the planets of the solar system. If the gravitational coefficient is determined in a similar way from the parameters of the orbits of electrons in the Hydrogen atom, then the gravitational coefficient of the planetary system of the Hydrogen atom becomes 40 orders of magnitude greater than in the solar system. Then the Planck parameters of the Hydrogen atom are the parameters of an electron with its radius equal to the radius of the Compton wave of the electron. Those. each level of fractal matter has its own “Planck parameters”, and the generally accepted Planck parameters are an abstract delusion and have no real meaning at all. Indeed, what relation does the gravitational coefficient from the parameters of the Solar system have to the parameters of the planetary system of the Hydrogen atom? None!!!
You have to think big!
The fine structure constant can be easily calculated with an accuracy of up to 7 digits, assuming that all elements of matter have a fractal structure. Then, therefore, "black holes" do not exist, and there is no event horizon. Those. inside putative "black holes", there is deterministic matter that obeys the simple quantum laws of fractal matter, which unify gravity and quantum phenomena of the deterministic functioning of matter on all scales of the universe [ appendix: https://s3.amazonaws.com/fqxi.data/data/essay-contest-files/16/reference_id_2304.pdf
https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/entry/2304#control_panel ].
Thank you for your kind words and advice. I agree that no one should require scientists to study things that they might think is a waste of time, but those scientists who do choose to study such things should be able to do so without ridicule, should be able discuss their work at scientific meetings, publish it in serious scientific journals, and have some funding mechanisms available. Thank you for pointing me to your essay. I will read it with great interest!
Thank you for your kind words about my essay. Thank you also for pointing me to your essay which addresses similar topics. I find that these essay contests are an excellent means for me, and others, to be able to get my/our thoughts on a particular topic in order and on paper, and for others to read those thoughts. I agree that much of science is driven by an agenda based on what tangible things can result from it (usually money), and that this hampers the discovery and understanding of phenomena that do not have any obvious immediate payoff. I look forward to reading your essay.
Thank you for your kind words, and for pointing me to your essay. I agree that there are some mysteries yet related to the fine structure constant and the scaling of theories at the quantum level, such as the relationships between the classical electron radius, the Compton wavelength, and the Bohr radius.
THINKING BIG, there is much to learn... EVERYWHERE!!!
6 days later
Other anomalies in science:
-The energy of an oscillator for Planck model of black body radiation is and integer multiple of its total energy but in Shrodinger quatum mechanics is an integer and a half.