Obama Space Plan Is At Outline Stage

[MirariNefas]

Science is just too full of orthodoxies these days. I don't like it one bit. ... (truncated)

Yes, so right. Why is everyone so bl**dy sure they're correct?

I made a post on "Mind Control" not long ago with links that answer your question. It is easy to convince people, it is much much more difficult to change their minds.

I guess it has to do with the observed fact that each and every one of us wants, no, has an ingrained need, to be right, and if we were to change our mind on a topic then at some level that is an admission that we were wrong.

If the topic is only of ancillary interest then changing positions can happen. But the more we have "invested" in a position, the more tightly we hold to it. It is human nature and yes, it does get in the way of the scientific method.

There are papers and studies examining how these principles apply to scientists. It's a recognized problem, without an easy answer. I read a nice little idealistic essay from around the 20's (I think) about the benefits of using multiple working hypotheses to avoid bias. 90 years on, alas, bias is still a problem. The scientific community tries to do its best.

[MirariNefas]

Experimental results don't support his predictions, and instead seem to indicate serious experimental design flaws. Maybe the next experiment and round of theory will be great, who knows, but right now, there isn't a lot of support for his claims.

Unfortunately, this could describe Polywell until WB-6 and the head slap (d'uhhh) moment.

I feel like that's a good criticism of secrecy, actually. If Dr. Bussard had been publishing the whole time, someone would have caught little mistakes like that a long time ago.

Moving on though, you seem to be implying that every poorly thought out experiment should be given an arbitrary number of second chances (or read, attention/enthusiasm) because you never know when something mind-blowingly cool will pop up. To which I say, "No." The scientific community has limited resources, both in terms of time and money. The current algorithm for optimizing progress may have some faults, but it also has merits.

[KitemanSA]

Unfortunately, this could describe Polywell until WB-6 and the head slap (d'uhhh) moment.

I feel like that's a good criticism of secrecy, actually. If Dr. Bussard had been publishing the whole time, someone would have caught little mistakes like that a long time ago.

No argument here.

Moving on though, you seem to be implying that every poorly thought out experiment should be given an arbitrary number of second chances (or read, attention/enthusiasm) because you never know when something mind-blowingly cool will pop up. To which I say, "No." The scientific community has limited resources, both in terms of time and money. The current algorithm for optimizing progress may have some faults, but it also has merits.

My apologies if I gave that impression, I had no such intent. Nor am I willing to condemn any mistake with a "looks like crap". Sometimes I just say, "I don't know" and leave things to those who are interested enough to find out what is NEEDED to make the proper decision.

[MirariNefas]

Fair enough, and I don't mean to imply that no further work should be done on this subject, or that I'm at all qualified to make a prouncement of that sort anyway. I'm just surprised that people (not you I think, though names blur together) seem to take it for granted that this work is so deserving of funding (in this case, NASA's money). So I get a little huffy and criticize.

[Betruger]

How cheap and simple this research is vs. the implications of even 1/2 the projected benefits, is probably why this one gets on people's short list of "dark horses".

[BenTC]

I guess it has to do with the observed fact that each and every one of us wants, no, has an ingrained need, to be right, and if we were to change our mind on a topic then at some level that is an admission that we were wrong.

My own idle speculation is derived from considering that we are just pattern-matching-machines. Every time we encounter something, our brain tries to fit it into existing patterns. This is one reason older people have more trouble learning new things than the young. They have more stored patterns trying to "own" the new thing. Once a pattern is linked, its hard to unlink it (even when you want to eg when trying "hard" to learn a new thing). All further understanding and action is then predicated on that view of the world.

[doug l]

So, BenTC, if it's true that old people have a harder time learning, which sounds reasonable to me and I admit to being an older person these days, is it also true that younger people have a harder time understanding what they are learning in context of how it relates to the existing understanding? Might explain a lot of the sociological aspects of science that are so prominent especially now.

[MirariNefas]

Yeah, it's true. I learn things and have no idea how they're going to fit together in a bigger picture. It gradually gets better the more of the picture I get. Not sure what you mean by the sociological aspects of science though.

[BenTC]

is it also true that younger people have a harder time understanding what they are learning in context of how it relates to the existing understanding?

I've been taking time considering my reply. I think older people are better able to fit things they learn into the context of existing understanding. Its not just that they have more "understanding" on file. Older people have had more practice at the process of contextualising. However the lack of "existing understanding" is both a pro and a con for the young - for instance in terms of trailblazing new paths when "existing understanding" is not necessarily correct.

I remember reading somewhere that the most productive age of scientists for "revolutionary" progress is before the age of 25. </penny drops> Actually something else I read not too long ago was about fMRI scanning of young males, which showed that the part of the brain that makes you do stupid things (aka creative trailblazing) develops about the ago of 16, and the other part of your brain that opposes stupid things (you 'second' voice) doesn't develop until the age of 25. Speculation is that in prehistorical times this was a fitness function at the tribal level. The young explore and either die or learn something useful. Then tribe then gains by that knowledge being kept safe with the elders.

I now wonder at the correlation.

[Betruger]

I'd found a study on just this topic, but can't find it for the life of me now. Conclusions were similar - more experienced brains are less plastic but less distracted by complex situations. They pick out the relevant patterns faster and easier while younger brains are effectively overwhelmed. There was more to it, but I can't recall..