Bad Ideas That Won't Go Away

[Vampyr]

Teachers in school said, "the atom is the smallest particle there is." and never ever modified it to add, "as far as we now know". I'm sure I am dating myself with that comment

 

You certainly are, since the electron was discovered in 1897.

[barmar]

Absolutely agree with you BUT I also think that lots of people tend to present science AS absolute truth. Teachers in school said, "the atom is the smallest particle there is." and never ever modified it to add, "as far as we now know". I'm sure I am dating myself with that comment but I'm also sure that much of what is being taught in at least most schools now is equally dogmatic.

I think it's a bit much to expect teachers to qualify every statement they make -- the lessons would be full of more qualifiers than actual information. For the purposes of most lessons, describing things to the extent of our knowledge is good enough.

 

In fact, it's even OK to lie, sometimes. Einstein's Special and General Relativity made Newton's Laws of Motion obsolete over 100 years ago. Yet every physics student still learns them, and there's no need for teachers to add caveats about the fact that they're not really "true". 99.9% of people will never find themselves in situations where they need to worry about relativistic effects. If teachers want to mention this, it would be a nice "fun fact", but it doesn't really need to be part of the lesson. Newton's Laws are still good enough for most purposes, just as (in Asimov's essay) it's close enough to consider Earth to be either a sphere or oblate spheroid, and for some purposes you can even treat it as flat (a mapmaker needs to worry about spherical projections if he's mapping a large portion of the world, but usually not if he's mapping a county or state).

[mike777]

"Bad Ideas That Won't Go Away Can they ever be eradicated?"

 

Really Bad ideas go away when one has "skin in the game"

 

The absence of being at risk if your bad idea is indeed bad is the greatest generator of crises in society.

 

Gaining at the expense of others by getting the upside from volatility, variations, and disorder and exposing others to the downside risks of losses or harm by those in power with no personal exposure is the issue.

 

In the past People of power and rank were those who had the downside for their actions and heroes were those who did so for the sake of others, today we see example after example of the reverse taking place.

 

I for one want to encourage ideas even though many of them may be bad or just plain wrong as long as those who may gain from the idea accept the downside.

 

Bad ideas or bad or wrong science theory is not the big problem.

[blackshoe]

Einstein's Special and General Relativity made Newton's Laws of Motion obsolete over 100 years ago.

"Obsolete" is way too strong. As you mentioned, Relativistic effects are only important at relativistic speeds - speeds much higher than most people will normally encounter. Newtonian physics is a very useful approximation at non-relativistic speeds, so it is hardly obsolete. It's also important to an understanding of the history and evolution of our scientific knowledge. So again, not obsolete.

 

In the same way, Euclidean geometry does not adequately describe space in regions of high gravitational fields (such as near a black hole) but is a perfectly adequate approximation in regions of weak gravity. So the development of Riemannian geometries which enabled Einstein's General Theory of Relativity did not make Euclidean geometry obsolete, it merely relegated it to the status of "approximation".

[barmar]

"Obsolete" is way too strong. As you mentioned, Relativistic effects are only important at relativistic speeds - speeds much higher than most people will normally encounter.

Which is exactly my point. Teachers don't have to worry about such minor details in their lessons, and the same goes with the "as far as we know" qualifier. Science is good enough that what we "know" is usually close enough to the truth that it can be treated as fact. Sometimes it's just an approximation, but the margin of error isn't enough for most people to worry about.

 

If you read actual science articles, they're full of qualifiers. Try to find any article in Scientific American that declares something as an absolute fact, and I'm sure that science journal articles are even less definitive. Mostly they talk about how some new discoveries or experiments are evidence of an alternate theory of something, or how a new conjecture better fits some old data, and things like this. They rarely call a new theory "right" or declare that an old one was "wrong", there are lots of "maybe"s. Over time, more and more evidence accumulates, and predictions of the theory are discovered to be true, and eventually a concensus may be reached that it's a better approximation than the previous ones. Or it may be refuted. That's how science works.

[dwar0123]

"Obsolete" is way too strong. As you mentioned, Relativistic effects are only important at relativistic speeds - speeds much higher than most people will normally encounter. Newtonian physics is a very useful approximation at non-relativistic speeds, so it is hardly obsolete. It's also important to an understanding of the history and evolution of our scientific knowledge. So again, not obsolete.

 

In the same way, Euclidean geometry does not adequately describe space in regions of high gravitational fields (such as near a black hole) but is a perfectly adequate approximation in regions of weak gravity. So the development of Riemannian geometries which enabled Einstein's General Theory of Relativity did not make Euclidean geometry obsolete, it merely relegated it to the status of "approximation".

You are restating Barmars actual points, almost point by point as an explanation of your quibble about word choice. Word choice on the topic of physics on a bridge forum that draws an international audience.

 

I actually agree with you, obsolete is to strong a word, but the word obsolete wasn't the point.

[gwnn]

And they were both restating my (admittedly far from clear) second post. :)

[barmar]

Even the discovery that something like 95% of the universe is made of Dark Energy, which we didn't even know about a generation ago and still don't know what it's made of, doesn't really invalidate most previous scientific discoveries. It just fills in an (admittedly large) gap, much as the discovery of the Americas filled in a gap in Europe's knowledge of world geography, but didn't make maps of Europe and Africa wrong.

[blackshoe]

Or at least not more wrong than they already were. B-)

[mike777]

Bad Ideas That Won't Go Away Can they ever be eradicated?

 

 

me thinks people are sidetracked from the topic... :)

 

I think we all can agree that 1+1=3 can never be eradicated but is that our biggest bad idea...:)

 

bad ideas...bad or wrong/false/incorrect science is not the issue...I hope.

 

failure...bad ideas..wrong ideas are ok, not best, but ok......lets not shame people for a bad/wrong idea.

 

Instead let us all embrace failure and move on and learn a better idea...perhaps not perfect but better in terms of science/review/explain/test/etc

 

 

worst is to embrace/implement ideas from people that don't have "skin in the game".

 

If you want to bet on local farming or astrology..fair enough...no prlb

[FM75]

It looks like this thread is foundering on science that got improved. That is, science that is valid under most conditions, but that requires a modification to cover discovered exceptions.

 

Euclidean versus non-Euclidean geometry, mechanics and quantum mechanics, mechanics and relativistic mechanics, etc.

 

I did not anticipate this drift, but rather was discussing ideas that were just plain wrong from the outset. We scientists love the new theory that replace the old one that ran into experimental trouble, but which in the "classical limits" agrees with the "classical theory".

 

 

For example, [heresy alert], one can describe a geocentric universe, with the sun, moon, and stars orbiting it. There is nothing wrong with that picture, even scientifically. Shocking, maybe, but Einstein showed that there is no "preferred reference frame". That said, the equations of motion, in a geocentric reference frame are very complex. So we discard that reference frame as being too difficult for most calculations. and use one in which the calculations are more convenient - planetary etc. need non-geocentric reference frames, but not airplanes and shipping - depending on distance, they may not even require recognition of the curvature of the earth for practical results.

 

So think, don't go out in the cold without a coat, or you will "catch a cold". Double your bet until you win, because the win will exceed the total of all previous losses. Aerobic exercise fad based on an experiment with the preserved muscles of a DEAD frog. Fuel cells which generate electrical energy from hydrogen and oxygen without generating greenhouse gases, And yes, the "buy local" idea mentioned in the OP which ignores both the known results of the traveling salesman problem, and the clearly evolutionary approach to sales and distribution systems, as well as 19th century economic analysis.

 

Toss in 'momentum' in sports, and astrology. These are examples of the "bad ideas that won't go away". The ideas that explain the behavior of a wide range of systems, but that need refinement to be more broadly appicable, are not the types of ideas that I had in mind.

 

For fun, review the OP, and consider some of the questions, a few of which have been addressed so far.

[mike777]

It looks like this thread is foundering on science that got improved. That is, science that is valid under most conditions, but that requires a modification to cover discovered exceptions.

 

Euclidean versus non-Euclidean geometry, mechanics and quantum mechanics, mechanics and relativistic mechanics, etc.

 

I did not anticipate this drift, but rather was discussing ideas that were just plain wrong from the outset. We scientists love the new theory that replace the old one that ran into experimental trouble, but which in the "classical limits" agrees with the "classical theory".

 

 

For example, [heresy alert], one can describe a geocentric universe, with the sun, moon, and stars orbiting it. There is nothing wrong with that picture, even scientifically. Shocking, maybe, but Einstein showed that there is no "preferred reference frame". That said, the equations of motion, in a geocentric reference frame are very complex. So we discard that reference frame as being too difficult for most calculations. and use one in which the calculations are more convenient - planetary etc. need non-geocentric reference frames, but not airplanes and shipping - depending on distance, they may not even require recognition of the curvature of the earth for practical results.

 

So think, don't go out in the cold without a coat, or you will "catch a cold". Double your bet until you win, because the win will exceed the total of all previous losses. Aerobic exercise fad based on an experiment with the preserved muscles of a DEAD frog. Fuel cells which generate electrical energy from hydrogen and oxygen without generating greenhouse gases, And yes, the "buy local" idea mentioned in the OP which ignores both the known results of the traveling salesman problem, and the clearly evolutionary approach to sales and distribution systems, as well as 19th century economic analysis.

 

Toss in 'momentum' in sports, and astrology. These are examples of the "bad ideas that won't go away". The ideas that explain the behavior of a wide range of systems, but that need refinement to be more broadly appicable, are not the types of ideas that I had in mind.

 

For fun, review the OP, and consider some of the questions, a few of which have been addressed so far.

 

 

OP

 

as I said bad ideas are not the issue you seem hung up on this. I want to encourage ideas...many many new ideas even though I will bet that most of them are wrong!

 

buy local is a fine idea to test out with skin in the game ...as I said in above post as is astrology.

 

some bad ideas that wont go away are not the issue...you seem hung up on this issue for some reason but you don't explain why we should care that 1+1=3 a bad idea that wont go away.

 

really bad ideas go away when the person has skin in the game.

Not having skin in the game for a really bad idea is a problem.

 

see my previous posts for more detail.

----------

 

 

If you want a bad idea with zero proof see put a cold compress on fill in the blank. but again that is lack of peer review and testing. basic science 101.

--------

 

 

medicine is a tough nut....1) assume new medicine has in the short run a small benefit; 2) we just don't know the long term cost 20 years out. 3) if the benefit is large in the short run we are more willing to worry less, much less, about the very long term cost.

[Vampyr]

Your "bad ideas", above and in the OP, are really not that bad. No one is likely to get hurt except with the betting strategy. I do some of them myself, like stretching before exercise and buying local. Why are you so concerned about things like these?

[mike777]

Your "bad ideas", above and in the OP, are really not that bad. No one is likely to get hurt except with the betting strategy. I do some of them myself, like stretching before exercise and buying local. Why are you so concerned about things like these?

 

 

vamp you do realize you have bet on both of these "bad ideas" you have skin in the game. :)

 

and that is ok. you make my point.,

 

if stretching or buying local has a downside....you have bet it. if YOU pull a muscle get a virus or food poison or other and die...that is your bet...

 

the problem is too not have skin in the game the problem is not to just have a bad idea.

 

anyway I agree with you.

[kenberg]

It looks like this thread is foundering on science that got improved. That is, science that is valid under most conditions, but that requires a modification to cover discovered exceptions.

 

Euclidean versus non-Euclidean geometry, mechanics and quantum mechanics, mechanics and relativistic mechanics, etc.

 

I did not anticipate this drift, but rather was discussing ideas that were just plain wrong from the outset. We scientists love the new theory that replace the old one that ran into experimental trouble, but which in the "classical limits" agrees with the "classical theory".

 

 

For example, [heresy alert], one can describe a geocentric universe, with the sun, moon, and stars orbiting it. There is nothing wrong with that picture, even scientifically. Shocking, maybe, but Einstein showed that there is no "preferred reference frame". That said, the equations of motion, in a geocentric reference frame are very complex. So we discard that reference frame as being too difficult for most calculations. and use one in which the calculations are more convenient - planetary etc. need non-geocentric reference frames, but not airplanes and shipping - depending on distance, they may not even require recognition of the curvature of the earth for practical results.

 

So think, don't go out in the cold without a coat, or you will "catch a cold". Double your bet until you win, because the win will exceed the total of all previous losses. Aerobic exercise fad based on an experiment with the preserved muscles of a DEAD frog. Fuel cells which generate electrical energy from hydrogen and oxygen without generating greenhouse gases, And yes, the "buy local" idea mentioned in the OP which ignores both the known results of the traveling salesman problem, and the clearly evolutionary approach to sales and distribution systems, as well as 19th century economic analysis.

 

Toss in 'momentum' in sports, and astrology. These are examples of the "bad ideas that won't go away". The ideas that explain the behavior of a wide range of systems, but that need refinement to be more broadly applicable, are not the types of ideas that I had in mind.

 

For fun, review the OP, and consider some of the questions, a few of which have been addressed so far.

 

In my first response I tried as best I could to address your points. But it can be difficult. For example, from this post:

 

And yes, the "buy local" idea mentioned in the OP which ignores both the known results of the traveling salesman problem, and the clearly evolutionary approach to sales and distribution systems, as well as 19th century economic analysis.

 

I truly have no idea what you are talking about. To start with, I don't really know what you include in "the 'buy local' idea". I don't know what it has to do with the traveling salesman problem. I don't understand the reference to "evolutionary approach to sales and distribution", and I don't know much about "19th century economic analysis" nor do I see what it has to do with whether I buy local. I am positive that I consider none of these things before I go down to the (local) Dairy Queen for a pineapple sundae.

 

And betting strategies cannot be evaluated unless you know something about the game being played and the needs and objectives of the better. Me, I stay out of Las Vegas and except for charities,where I rarely check to see if I won, I have never bought a lottery ticket in my life.

 

If I get caught in the rain when it is 40F outside, I try to get inside as soon as possible. Then I change clothes. Seems right. And then I have some hot chocolate and sit by the fireplace. Not bad ideas, I think.

 

Added: What I mean about betting is this. Suppose a guy has $1023 and he really needs $1024. He has the opportunity to repeatedly bet any dollar amount he chooses on whether a fair coin comes up heaeds ar tails. Betting a dollar will achieve his objective, if he wins. If he loses, he bets $2, achieving his goal if he wins. He will stop as soon as he reaches $1024 or, of course, if he goes broke. His "expected gain" is $0. But this is in the mathematical sense of 'expected". In fact he will either lose all $1023 or he will win a buck. Most of us, in most situations, would think it right to keep the $1023 even though our chances of winning the extra buck by this strategy work out to 1023/1024. But our action depends on how much that extra buck is needed. Multiply the amounts by 50,000 and imagine he has been embezzling money from the mob. He is dead unless he can pay back every cent. In the unlikely event that he loses the coin flip ten times in a row he is dead. Exactly as dead as if he did not play at all, He needs the entire 1024 times 50,000 dollars. So he plays. The bad idea here was embezzling the money in the first place. The betting strategy is pretty rational. And yes he should start with smaller amounts than %0,000 times 1, but maybe time is of the essence here.

[barmar]

I truly have no idea what you are talking about. To start with, I don't really know what you include in "the 'buy local' idea". I don't know what it has to do with the traveling salesman problem. I don't understand the reference to "evolutionary approach to sales and distribution", and I don't know much about "19th century economic analysis" nor do I see what it has to do with whether I buy local. I am positive that I consider none of these things before I go down to the (local) Dairy Queen for a pineapple sundae.

"buy local" doesn't mean going to local stores, it means that you should buy products (especially fruits and vegetables) that were produced nearby, rather than products that had to be shipped long distances. The naive heory is that this saves on all the pollution caused by transportation, and it's also good for the local economy to keep those farms in business.

 

What it fails to account for is the economies of scale. Larger farms produce less greenhouse emissions per unit, and transporting in bulk also does. These effects can outweigh the extra emissions due to the longer distances. I think the relevance of the TSP is that they can optimize the routes that the trucks take to minimize the amount of fuel they use.

[hrothgar]

I think the relevance of the TSP is that they can optimize the routes that the trucks take to minimize the amount of fuel they use.

 

The key point of the traveling saleman problem is that its NP hard

its classically used and an example of the types of problems that you can't optimize in polynomial time...

[kenberg]

Right, I know the TS problem is hard in some technical CS sense. I believe (tho I am not sure) that finding good but not optimal solutions is more tractable. At any rate, I am not sure it matters. It matters for them, the shippers, but not for me.

 

but still

 

 

We get our veggies throug a CSA (C for community, A for agriculture, I forget what S is for). We do this because we like the product. We used a different CSA before and stopped because we did not like their product.

 

We have not found this decision to require graduate training in either CS or Econ, whether 19th century or other.

 

I'm not sure what the bad idea is. My thought is to buy what I like where I like it. The local super markets have definitely gotten better with produce. Much better. But I still (often, for much of the stuff) prefer the CSA stuff. So we buy it. I guess it is organic, sort of, maybe. I don't much care.

 

If I am thinking wrong here, I will be happy to learn. I truly am not getting it.

 

Edit: I saw Richard's post and had that in mind. Now I see barmar.

OK, so this is some sort of ecological morality thing, is that it? I should prefer the large chains rather than the CSA on ecological grounds?

Perhaps so, but I have to be convinced. I didn't get that from the OP but maybe that's the idea.

I am a sinner.

[kenberg]

To try this a different way:

 

Please state a "bad idea" in it's entirety.

 

Eg:

Bad idea: Buy vegetable from local farmers, hoping that they will be fresher and have better taste.

 

Is this what is being called a bad idea? If so, it presumably is easy to test. Buy a few and taste them.

 

Another possible example of something that might be a bad idea:

Buy vegetables from local farmers for ecological reasons.

This is not my reason but I gather that barmar, and maybe the original poster, is saying that this is a mistaken reason. Perhaps so. I dunno. My guess is that it depends on a lot of things.

 

Or maybe something else is the bad idea that is being dissed here. Beats me.

[PassedOut]

The growing season is not long in Upper Michigan, but there is an organic farm about eight miles from where we live that sells direct to consumers. Constance and I drive there once or twice per week to buy fresh fruits and vegetables. Their produce tastes terrific compared with the stuff trucked in to the markets. We like the folks who own and run the farm.

 

Fresh Lake Superior fish are available year-round at a fish market about six miles from where we live. It is owned and run by the family that does the fishing. We like the family and the fish. Constance and I drive there to shop at least once a week, and always before a trip to visit relatives: their smoked whitefish is now an expected treat. One of their sons, who had been a chef in New York, came back to Upper Michigan to start a little restaurant that features their fish. We like to eat there.

 

A monastery about twenty miles from here makes and sells jam from locally picked berries. Tastes great to us and our relatives.

 

At the grocery store, about ten miles from here, we buy eggs and milk produced by farmers here in the Upper Peninsula.

 

Most other foods we buy come trucked in from a distance, as does out-of-season food during our winter. But I have to laugh at the notion that our 'buying local' is a bad idea.

:P

[dwar0123]

Most other foods we buy come trucked in from a distance, as does out-of-season food during our winter. But I have to laugh at the notion that our 'buying local' is a bad idea.

:P

 

The bad idea is to think that buying local will help save the Earth from climate change. As that isn't under the list of reasons you do it, doesn't really apply.