Do amateur researchers mainly spread nonsense or can they contribute to the progress of science?
Many findings that we now regard as intellectual breakthroughs were at odds with prevailing opinion at the time they were formulated. In most cases, these new findings were initially rejected or even fiercely opposed. Examples include Copernicus' heliocentric view of the world, Alfred Wegener's continental drift hypothesis and Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. However, this finding does not mean that every idea that deviates from the majority opinion is ingenious and will prevail over time. In most cases, it is simply nonsense.
Many scientists moan about the flood of crazy ideas that they are bombarded with by amateur researchers or that circulate on the internet. There are many autodidacts out there who deal with philosophical questions or fundamental theories such as relativity and quantum physics that are not intuitively obvious. These amateur researchers can also be found in other subjects such as mathematics and biology; some subject areas such as local history or genealogy are even almost exclusively tackled by amateur researchers. Many of these hobby researchers are either teachers or retired people who, after their active working lives, devote themselves to the questions and topics that have always interested them. They have often studied a relevant subject and possess considerable knowledge, but not always. During my professional life, I have had several dealings with such freethinkers because they were looking for people to talk to, financial support or ways of exploiting their ideas. Most of the freethinkers I dealt with, however, were a special kind of person, known in English as 'cranks'. Completely convinced of their mostly half-baked ideas, they were unable to see the flaws in their own reasoning while fiercely criticizing other points of view (especially the scientific mainstream). Moreover, they were often unable to convincingly explain the advantages of their approach. Only very few were open to a critical discussion of their approach.
Now I've switched sides and have become one of those free thinkers whose ideas are circulating on the internet. It's kind of bizarre. On the one hand, I know that the active scientific community is annoyed with guys like me, but on the other hand, I also see how the scientific mainstream closes itself off to unconventional approaches.
Innovations in science are like mutations in biology: most mutations are useless or even harmful, only in a few cases do they prove to be superior. But without them there would be no progress, no further development. Whether a mutation or a new idea is useful is only proven in practice. Just as mutations can only prevail if they offer an advantage in terms of survival and reproduction, new ideas must prove their viability in the acid bath of criticism. In your study room, you ever revolve around your own thoughts. The only way to find out whether your own ideas are convincing and can stand up to criticism is in dialog with others. That's why we hope for interest and feedback on the ideas we present on deep-thought.org!
Comments powered by CComment