Why are groundbreaking new ideas often stifled in the politics of science?

  • #1
polytropia
I came here after noticing a thread I found amusing where someone named "vanesch" said in this post that theories like SED are unneccessary ontological "toy worlds" for people who need to have an explanation behind the formalism of QM, to make themselves feel better.

Mainly I just wanted to come here so I could see the reaction of people like vanesch to the work of John W.M. Bush, who seems to have vindicated de Broglie vis-a-vis Niels Bohr with Pilot-Wave Hydrodynamics :D

I enjoy true science and new ideas, and coming from a family of scientists, I am interested to explore why the politics of science often stifles perfectly legitimate, even groundbreaking new ideas, to the extent that the only new ideas that survive to challenge hegemony are those whose proponents have somehow managed to devote their entire lives to seemingly fruitless, nearly career-suicide work.

I am also a life-long lover of cosmology and an activist for the watchdogs of Hanford and Fukushima, the sad legacies of arrogance, war, and lack of foresight. I'm interested to know why such smart people didn't know that Murphy's Law is the zeroeth law of Thermodynamics?

BTW, I'm not here to troll or oppose useful math, just to observe the politics of science play out in debates and hopefully pick up some knowledge of physics along the way. I think it's important to have constructive debates and seeing one like the thread I linked to above made me confident that I could learn a lot here.

polytropia
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Welcome to PF! I am relatively new here, but I can tell you that this place is a haven for those looking to understand and apply established physical theories.
 
  • #3
AlephNumbers said:
Welcome to PF! I am relatively new here, but I can tell you that this place is a haven for those looking to understand and apply established physical theories.

Well and to inquire about peer-reviewed, published works, right?
 
  • #4
If it has been published and peer-reviewed, of course!
 
  • #5
Welcome to PF!
 
  • #6
Hello polytropia!

As it happens, I only joined here yesterday. My aims sound quite similar to yours.

Welcome!

Mahmoud.
 
  • #7
SpanishOmelette said:
Hello polytropia!

As it happens, I only joined here yesterday. My aims sound quite similar to yours.

Welcome!

Mahmoud.

That's great to hear, Mahmoud! I'm a software developer now, and I am possibly working on some things that will model quantum systems in virtual reality. So I may have an ulterior motive :D
 

1. Why do politicians often reject or ignore new scientific ideas?

Politicians are often more concerned with short-term solutions and gaining public support rather than long-term scientific advancements. They may also have personal biases or financial interests that conflict with new ideas.

2. How does the pressure to secure funding affect the acceptance of new scientific ideas?

In order to secure funding for their research, scientists may feel pressured to conform to popular or established ideas in order to please funding agencies or investors. This can stifle the development of new and potentially groundbreaking ideas.

3. Are there any specific political agendas that hinder the progress of new scientific ideas?

Yes, there are often political agendas that prioritize certain scientific ideas over others, leading to the suppression of alternative or conflicting ideas. This can be influenced by factors such as public opinion, economic interests, and national security concerns.

4. How can the politics of science be improved to encourage the development of new ideas?

Transparency and open communication between scientists, politicians, and the public can help to reduce biases and promote the acceptance of new ideas. Additionally, increased funding and support for research in diverse fields can also foster the growth of innovative ideas.

5. What impact does the media have on the politics of science and the acceptance of new ideas?

The media plays a significant role in shaping public opinion and can heavily influence the acceptance or rejection of new scientific ideas. Sensationalism and misinformation can lead to public skepticism and hinder the progress of new ideas, while accurate and unbiased reporting can help to promote understanding and support for scientific advancements.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
370
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
10K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
47
Views
9K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
4
Replies
128
Views
41K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
Back
Top