One of the many advantages to operating within the standard
(plasma physics, space science) scientific paradigm is that key terms are clearly defined, and connections with the underlying (physics) theory easily traced.
One of the disadvantages to operating outside this paradigm is that key terms lose their precision, communication becomes fuzzy, misunderstandings all too common, and so on.
I wish I could be so generous. As far as I can tell, that "fuzziness" is not a disadvantage. In most cases of "anti-establishment" science, it's the only support they actually have for their theories (as opposed to the evidence that something is going on here, which is often pretty good). If they attempted precision, they'd be forced to confront their theories with the probability that if (for example) there was a "space current" strong enough to power the Sun, it would be strong enough to have detectable effects on Earth.
On the other hand, truly gifted scientists often avail themselves of fuzziness precisely because it allows them to jump out of their boxes. (But please call it "speculation"!)
Nor is that precision an advantage that is used all that often by establishment scientists, except to avoid saying anything too stupid in front of their peers. Just keep doing ever more precise measurements and applying ever more abstruse group theory to the stylized facts, without looking carefully at the "stylized" facts to see whether they are real facts or not in light of more precise measurement.
What both the anti-establishment pseudo-scientists and the establishment pseudo-scientists have in common is that they ignore the truth that the real Scientific Establishment is the myriad of facts that "established theory" is fairly compatible with. The establishment pseudo-scientists just have an easier time getting published because following the beaten path helps them avoid saying anything too obviously contradictory to the myriad of past observations.
I certainly support your focus on testing, though. You don't always need a worked-out new theory to test a fuzzy idea, and thus sharpen it into a theory, but an idea without a test is pure metaphysics.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I could be so generous. As far as I can tell, that "fuzziness" is not a disadvantage. In most cases of "anti-establishment" science, it's the only support they actually have for their theories (as opposed to the evidence that something is going on here, which is often pretty good). If they attempted precision, they'd be forced to confront their theories with the probability that if (for example) there was a "space current" strong enough to power the Sun, it would be strong enough to have detectable effects on Earth.
On the other hand, truly gifted scientists often avail themselves of fuzziness precisely because it allows them to jump out of their boxes. (But please call it "speculation"!)
Nor is that precision an advantage that is used all that often by establishment scientists, except to avoid saying anything too stupid in front of their peers. Just keep doing ever more precise measurements and applying ever more abstruse group theory to the stylized facts, without looking carefully at the "stylized" facts to see whether they are real facts or not in light of more precise measurement.
What both the anti-establishment pseudo-scientists and the establishment pseudo-scientists have in common is that they ignore the truth that the real Scientific Establishment is the myriad of facts that "established theory" is fairly compatible with. The establishment pseudo-scientists just have an easier time getting published because following the beaten path helps them avoid saying anything too obviously contradictory to the myriad of past observations.
I certainly support your focus on testing, though. You don't always need a worked-out new theory to test a fuzzy idea, and thus sharpen it into a theory, but an idea without a test is pure metaphysics.