Originally posted by Aramis:
The reason for peer review is that science is so large that one can not know enough to validly thoroughly test one's idea against all accepted theories intellectually. Let alone actually confirm it.
Its not old theory that any new one has to take on. It is reality itself. This is something that seems missing in alot of this. The entire reason for proposing a theory in the first place is as a description of reality. Whether it fits in with old theories or not, is irrelevant.
Science is not religion. Peer reveiw has no bearing on the truth of a scientific theory. All it does determine is whether a particular publication will publish the theory. If it fails peer review, then the author has to go elsewhere to get it published. (Or he can put it up on the LANL archives which have no peer review)
What determines the success of a theory is whether it provides a useable model of reality. Whether it provides insight, and/or predictions that are borne out. Even if an original theory is rejected by a particular publication, that will do little to silence it in itself. Especially in this internet age.
In fact, the reason for so many "Wild theories" is not that they are new insights (in fact, many tend to be derivative from similar sources in similar directions) but that so often people don't have the obvious refutation in their knowledge base due to scientific overspecialization....
Good point, and I think this is part of the problem. Another part is that the easy stuff has already been done, and the more fine or detailed observations required to further science means a lot of money needs to get spent. But again, there is an evolutionary process at work with reality as the final arbiter of what is, and is not true.
Only one areas of science really leaves room for amatuers much anymore: astonomy. In most other fields, finding sufficiently novel research to do is a trick in and of itself.
Physics has been shaken by several people working outside their own fields, tho...
Sad but true. Again, the increased expense, epecially in high energy physics is a big reason for the lack of amatuers. Anyone can pick up a telescope and perhaps spot a new comet. But how many of us can afford an atom smasher in our garage? (Would this even be a good thing if we could?)
There is another side issue that I see in my job. And that is the fact that getting a doctorate in physics is expensive in and of itself. That expense has to be justified, or else the doctor will feel like he had been conned. There is an all too human defense mechanism of denigrating an amatuer, or a lowly technician, because he did not spend the vaste amount of money going to college.
Now, as for traveller 'science', MWM made several layman's predictions. Some were patently absurd (computer sizes) within a few years, some were based upon inadequate knowledge (meson guns), and some were exceedingly generously optomistic (Gravitics by 2000).
Overall, though, it was a playable mix. That mix has been tampered with from time to time (DGP, Frank Chadwick, Loren Wiseman, MWM, Hunter Gordon), mostly to meet player demands.
Overall, any single edition is a playable mix. Lumping tem together, however, has some interesting quirks... and occasionally leads to disaster (since several have fundamentally different assumptions about power plants and fuel).
Again, good points, one and all. I think a lot of Marc got wrong back in the 70's is pretty forgivable. Its hard enough to predict where human events will go, let alone technical innovation. Heck, I am still waiting for my flying car.
But the fact that computer power has increased so dramatically, while prices have fallen just as dramatically, I doubt anyone could have forseen the day when they would be as ubiquitous or as powerful as they are in so short a time.
Even Marc's choice of jump drive makes sense in the context of scientific understanding of the 70's. And yes, it does provide a very playable mix, which is one reason my own efforts for building an alternative to it have been so difficult. You really get to see how each piece affects the others when you try to swap out one piece without destroying or rendering unplayable (or unrealistic) the rest of the game.
Well, God doesn't but we do. And we'll take our beliefs with us wherever we go, and how god(s) and our beliefs define good is part of it. For Hinduism it is very much a matter of each god defining good, conflicting with other gods, yet complimenting other gods. Death and rebirth, life and destruction. Even irreligious Europeans will take the moribund vestiges of historic Christianity with them.
