Groupthink Theory

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

As you know, Groupthink is a theory in psychology. It is not a fact, like all hypotheses. The effects of Groupthing can never be more than opinion, sometimes with much evidence to support it in a particular case where most would agree with. But for other cases few people might attribute idea suppression or group pressure to Groupthink. Since it is a theory, the exact effects of Groupthink in a particular case will always be a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the influences of Groupthink has destroyed nearly the entire truth of modern physics in every field of it, providing only marginal value to science in that field. But that's just my opinion, and could never be more than opinion regardless of the evidence that I might be able to provide to support it. There are too many variables in the human psyche and related group psychology.

 

Even if someday the mainstream might consider group idea suppression or group pressure as being a verifiable Groupthink fact, in any particular case however it will always be a matter of opinion IMO

 

 

 

Well thank you for your frankness Pantheory.

 

 

You appear to be saying that almost all of modern physics has been devastated by something that you believe exists, but whose existence you cannot demonstrate.

 

 

So, how is your belief in this thing that you can provide no evidence for any different from another person's belief in UFOs, pink unicorns or even God?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Well thank you for your frankness Pantheory.

 

You appear to be saying that almost all of modern physics has been devastated by something that you believe exists, but whose existence you cannot demonstrate.

 

So, how is your belief in this thing that you can provide no evidence for any different from another person's belief in UFOs, pink unicorns or even God?

 

Walter.

 

 

 

I certainly can provide what I believe to be personal evidence for the negative effects of Groupthink on science.  Examples such as antagonism toward alternative ideas like mine and pressures to conform to mainstream ideas put upon practitioners, but you or anyone can disagree with my examples and counter my examples with another cause outside of Groupthink, or assert that such a thing doesn't happen. Again, just a matter of opinion like the validity of any complex assertion.

 

Instead I will provide a link to Groupthink in wikepedia and another, whereby anyone can image a slew of examples resulting in bad theory, as good as the examples I could give.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

 

https://evolutionnews.org/2011/08/when_a_consensus_-_on_science/

 

 

[WalterP]

Pantheory,

 

I'm sorry friend, but you've just shot yourself in the foot.

 

https://evolutionnews.org/2011/08/when_a_consensus_-_on_science/

 

Evolution News is an outlet of the Discovery Institute.  This organization exists to promote Intelligent Design, which is the Christian pseudoscientific 'explanation' for the hand of God designing the universe.  These people are Young Earth Creationists, Pantheory. They are Biblical literalists.  Ardent Christians who believe that what is revealed to them in scripture by the holy spirit is the ultimate truth of reality.

 

Please click on the heading, Writers and compare them to the listing below.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Klinghoffer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denyse_O'Leary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nelson_(creationist)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologic_Institute Ann Gauger

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Douglas_Axe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Simmons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Egnor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton

 

They are pushing the idea that mainstream science is systemically flawed with Groupthink, not because of any secular reason, but because they are promoting a religious agenda.

 

So, do you really want to cite their article about Groupthink or would you rather retract it?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[pantheory]

38 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Pantheory,

 

I'm sorry friend, but you've just shot yourself in the foot.

 

https://evolutionnews.org/2011/08/when_a_consensus_-_on_science/

 

Evolution News is an outlet of the Discovery Institute.  This organization exists to promote Intelligent Design, which is the Christian pseudoscientific 'explanation' for the hand of God designing the universe.  These people are Young Earth Creationists, Pantheory. They are Biblical literalists.  Ardent Christians who believe that what is revealed to them in scripture by the holy spirit is the ultimate truth of reality.

 

Please click on the heading, Writers and compare them to the listing below.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Klinghoffer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denyse_O'Leary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nelson_(creationist)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologic_Institute Ann Gauger

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Douglas_Axe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Simmons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Egnor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton

 

They are pushing the idea that mainstream science is systemically flawed with Groupthink, not because of any secular reason, but because they are promoting a religious agenda.

 

So, do you really want to cite their article about Groupthink or would you rather retract it?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

OK, wrong second link. The link had a valid quote within it so I quickly chose it.

[WalterP]

Not a problem, Pantheory.

 

However, while your remaining citation from Wikipedia mentions that Groupthink does exist, it doesn't make the case that it is a widespread and systemic failure in ALL branches of science, which is your contention.

 

What you seem to be engaging in (possibly without knowing it) is an informal logical fallacy of illicit transference.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_illicit_transference

 

Specifically, a fallacy of composition.

 

You have cited examples of Groupthink in parts of the mainstream scientific establishment and then assumed that it applies to the whole.

 

This is a fallacious argument.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

Not a problem, Pantheory.

 

However, while your remaining citation from Wikipedia mentions that Groupthink does exist, it doesn't make the case that it is a widespread and systemic failure in ALL branches of science, which is your contention.

 

What you seem to be engaging in (possibly without knowing it) is an informal logical fallacy of illicit transference.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_illicit_transference

 

Specifically, a fallacy of composition.

 

You have cited examples of Groupthink in parts of the mainstream scientific establishment and then assumed that it applies to the whole.

 

This is a fallacious argument.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

No, I only know of strong negative influences in modern physics, cosmology, quantum theory, the standard model, special relativity, general relativity etc. relating to Groupthink, and a great deal of BS that exists in the theories produced and promoted as truth. Its influences exist in scientific journals since they generally publish what scientists want to read, rarely do they publish alternative theory. But to all branches of science in general, no, I don't see Groupthink negatives as a big problem. IMO one can see the problems in fields of science by the theories they produce.

 

The general bendings of science theory and non-centric bendings relate to perspectives. Perspectives are types of truths but from a single point of view, when in reality there are many other valid viewpoints. Of course many or most of these other valid viewpoints are never heard of or realized by students or practitioners, or even yet discovered. But I don't see this as a real problem in science.

 

Of course the negative effects of Groupthink can occur anywhere in science or anywhere else where alternative ideas are being suppressed and pressures to agree are being applied by the mainstream, usually or often for unintended reasons I expect.

[WalterP]

32 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

No, I only know of strong negative influences in modern physics, cosmology, quantum theory, the standard model, special relativity, general relativity etc. relating to Groupthink, and a great deal of BS that exists in the theories produced and promoted as truth. Its influences exist in scientific journals since they generally publish what scientists want to read, rarely do they publish alternative theory. But to all branches of science in general, no, I don't see Groupthink negatives as a big problem. IMO one can see the problems in fields of science by the theories they produce.

 

The general bendings of science theory and non-centric bendings relate to perspectives. Perspectives are types of truths but from a single point of view, when in reality there are many other valid viewpoints. Of course many or most of these other viewpoints are never heard of or realized, or even yet discovered. But I don't see this as a real problem in science.

 

Please think carefully about your wording, Pantheory.

 

You claim to KNOW of the strong negative influences of Groupthink, but so far in this thread all you've presented are beliefs, opinions and perceptions.

 

"My beef is with what I perceive to be the distortion of science by the effects of Groupthink."

"I believe my rantings are a harbinger of what will eventually become obvious."

"...my statements concerning Groupthink being involved with the errors of science and religion, are only my opinions as I almost always indicate."

"My opinion is that the influences of Groupthink has destroyed nearly the entire truth of modern physics in every field of it, providing only marginal value to science in that field. But that's just my opinion, and could never be more than opinion regardless of the evidence that I might be able to provide to support it."

"I certainly can provide what I believe to be personal evidence for the negative effects of Groupthink on science."

"Again, just a matter of opinion like the validity of any complex assertion."

 

If you did KNOW then you'd be able to present more than beliefs, opinions and perceptions, wouldn't you?

 

But you don't really KNOW do you?

 

You just BELIEVE that Groupthink negatively affects science.

 

Isn't that so?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Please think carefully about your wording, Pantheory.

 

You claim to KNOW of the strong negative influences of Groupthink, but so far in this thread all you've presented are beliefs, opinions and perceptions.

 

"My beef is with what I perceive to be the distortion of science by the effects of Groupthink."

"I believe my rantings are a harbinger of what will eventually become obvious."

"...my statements concerning Groupthink being involved with the errors of science and religion, are only my opinions as I almost always indicate."

"My opinion is that the influences of Groupthink has destroyed nearly the entire truth of modern physics in every field of it, providing only marginal value to science in that field. But that's just my opinion, and could never be more than opinion regardless of the evidence that I might be able to provide to support it."

"I certainly can provide what I believe to be personal evidence for the negative effects of Groupthink on science."

"Again, just a matter of opinion like the validity of any complex assertion."

 

If you did KNOW then you'd be able to present more than beliefs, opinions and perceptions, wouldn't you?

 

But you don't really KNOW do you?

 

You just BELIEVE that Groupthink negatively affects science.

 

Isn't that so?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

It is just one's opinion whether what you read is true or not. You can cite many links and cite logic, but all could be wrong. Almost every statement one makes is a matter of opinion. For example, you said above: "You claim to KNOW of the strong negative influences of Groupthink," I never made such a claim or statement; that was your opinion of what I said. The only way you can't make a mistake is to exactly quote someone, but even then your interpretation of what the quote means is just your opinion of the intended meaning. Personal interpretations and opinions may or may not be related to Groupthink on a larger scale.

 

Almost everything we believe to be true is just our opinion of the truth IMO. When a person makes a judgement about anything, that judgement is no more than a matter of opinion. The judgements I've made about modern physics are my opinions, in that only in particular cases can it be shown to be true, not the entire field. Therefore such judgements that Groupthink distorts any large entity or group in particular could never be more than a matter of opinion by anyone.

 

When one does research and finds a strong correlation between eating too much food and getting fat, for instance, you write a paper properly concluding that a major cause of getting fat is eating too much of the wrong foods. But in any particular case there are other factors so in some cases getting too fat can be hormonal, improper metabolic rate, burning protein rather than protein replacement, etc. Bottom line is that for any particular case why a person might be too fat would be just a matter of opinion until all diagnostics have been made, then it would be a doctor's opinion. So the more general statement that fat people eat too much, cannot accurately be made. But you could say that in your opinion: if people ate less they would weigh less.

 

If BB Cosmology is shown to be completely wrong concerning the theory itself and its minor hypothesis, as soon as possibly 5 years from now after the James Webb is properly positioned and functioning, maybe then someone will try to make a large scale study of the negative effects of Groupthink psychology on cosmology. Even then the meaning of the study's results will be the opinions of its authors, and of the readers based upon the evidence provided.

[WalterP]

Ahh, so now you are an epistemic relativist, Pantheory?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology#Epistemic_relativism

 

Epistemic relativism is the view that what is true, rational, or justified for one person need not be true, rational, or justified for another person. Epistemic relativists therefore assert that while there are relative facts about truth, rationality, justification, and so on, there is no perspective-independent fact of the matter. Note that this is distinct from epistemic contextualism, which holds that the meaning of epistemic terms vary across contexts (e.g. "I know" might mean something different in everyday contexts and skeptical contexts). In contrast, epistemic relativism holds that the relevant facts vary, not just linguistic meaning. Relativism about truth may also be a form of ontological relativism, insofar as relativists about truth hold that facts about what exists vary based on perspective.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

 

Epistemic relativism holds that there are no absolute facts regarding norms of belief, justification, or rationality, and that there are only relative ones.

 

 

 

How strange!

 

You strongly oppose General and Special Relativity, where there is no absolute frame of reference and the status of observers are all relative to each other.

 

Yet, when it comes facts and evidence you say that there are no absolutes, but only personal opinions and beliefs that are all relative to each other.

 

 

Really?

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

5 hours ago, WalterP said:

..................................................................

How strange!

 

You strongly oppose General and Special Relativity, where there is no absolute frame of reference and the status of observers are all relative to each other.

 

Yet, when it comes facts and evidence you say that there are no absolutes, but only personal opinions and beliefs that are all relative to each other.

 

Really?

 

 

 

There is no contradiction in these positions.

 

Special Relativity is simply wrong, period. There always is a background field and preferred reference frame. Such a field used to be called an aether. Today it is named by more modern names such as dark matter, dark energy, the Zero Point Field, the Higgs field, quantum foam, gravitons, etc. As to the mathematics of Special Relativity, they have been shown to be valid but were first derived by Heinric Mack in a different form. Therefore the mathematics of special relativity can rightfully be applied to other fields

 

I have no reason to argue with the mathematics of General Relativity, only its theoretical foundation of warped space which I believe is a fantasy. But I also don't think it is the last mathematical word on gravity. My addendum to it are the forces and equations of background field flow. The existence of a background field makes GR and Quantum mechanics compatible, there only separation mathematically IMO is the existence local hidden variables in the background field. A theory of quantum gravity will be developed and could be derived based upon this knowledge. But it would be a statistical model, with calculations more like quantum mechanics than General Relativity, but not exact because of the hidden variables involved. 

 

I believe in the general principle of relativity such as things are not big or small, just bigger or smaller, not heavy or light, just heavier or lighter, etc.  There must be a standard for comparison. Much of this relates to speech and writing.

 

My general philosophy is called Perspectivism. This philosophy asserts that everything is a perspective, a point of view regarding reality, not reality itself. Such as: it looks and sounds like a horse to me, or it looks like a pig to me when it's really a horse. All views and descriptions of reality cannot define it because reality can never accordingly be more than following a definition, or being a perspective, however inclusive or exclusive it may be.

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

So how is agreement between two parties reached on a given issue in the Perspectivist philosophy, Pantheory?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, WalterP said:

So how is agreement between two parties reached on a given issue in the Perspectivist philosophy, Pantheory?

 

 

Maybe it's the easiest philosophy to compromise if both are generally agreeable people. Since both agree there is no truth to it, both look at each others position and discuss the pros and cons. If either or both wish to compromise they can since both realize there is no ultimate truth involved and they can change their perspective if they want without much consideration, as long as one is not describing a pig and the other a horse.

 

For instance, I'm an atheist following perspectivism, talking to a theist that is unaware of his own philosophy. He says that god exists and god is everywhere and everything, everything physical and all energy. I ask him what powers he thinks god has. Is there a spiritual realm? I ask.. And he says that God has all the same powers as nature including all processes that exist in nature. I say, OK, I understand, then he says there is no spiritual realm. I then say that I agree that matter and energy exist, therefore I agree on your theory of pantheism by your definition of it. So I tell him that by your definition I am a theist too as long as you don't, and can't pray to him. He says OK and I say OK.  Therefore we agree.

 

He may have other ideas about it but at least concerning his primary premise, I can agree to the existence of his god based upon his definition of god with no addendum to it.

[Robert_Tulip]

A useful distinction can be made between positive and negative groupthink.

Positive groupthink is where a group has a positive belief that is demonstrably false (eg young earth creationism or climate change denial).  Its members engage in rationalisation and distortion to justify their false positive assertions and explain away the criticisms made by others of their false theory.

Negative groupthink is where the group is unified by true knowledge (well validated scientific consensus).  People adhering to such consensus are still susceptible to the psychological syndrome of negatively condemning alternative views out of hand.  In the case of global warming, the positive view on the physics of the greenhouse effect cannot be called groupthink, although denialists do say this.  Groupthink only enters the picture among climate scientists when they extend the negative condemnation of the obviously false opinions of climate denial to the condemning of views that are not clearly false.  Such as anyone (eg Lomborg) who challenges the consensus view that only the immediate decarbonisation of the world economy can prevent dangerous warming.  The result is a lack of respectful dialogue, ruling out possible climate solutions such as albedo enhancement and carbon removal.  The excluded ideas face a much higher bar for research and investment than ideas that accord with prevailing opinion.

Similar forms of negative groupthink apply whenever the refutation of a false proposition is extended to propositions that may be true (association fallacy).  For example the reasonable disdain about newspaper horoscopes extends into an irrational refusal to engage in any scientific analysis of astrology. 

This groupthink attitude is often linked to valid concerns about reputation and career, since an interest in anything esoteric or mystical is seen as a sign of being soft in the head. So people often keep such interests secret. Sometimes if prestigious scientists have weird interests their work is suppressed by others who find it embarrassing (eg the interest of Norman Lockyer in Egyptian Temple Cosmology, Isaac Newton on religion, or the interest of Wolfgang Pauli in Jungian synchronicity).

The groupthink attitude that assumes Jesus Christ was a real person is neither clearly positive nor negative.  The positive and negative claims are not settled, despite the broad social consensus that Jesus was real.  The groupthink mentality is shown by the refusal to engage with mythicist analysis, again due to an emotional repugnance rather like the scientific rejection of astrology.  Such repugnance is self-reinforcing, since it leads to experts completing a whole career in complete ignorance of serious research that challenges their prejudice and bias.

[pantheory]

I generally agree and have learned from your posting. But I do think that Groupthink is involved with the man-made global warming premise as to the extent of man's causes. Many of those believing this premise try to put down anyone who challenges their position, often on the grounds that their opponents are not educated enough about it, or that they have bad motives and don't care about the Earth. Even if they don't know or recognize it, this is a type of Groupthink pressure IMO if the opponents statements and evidence are not well studied or understood.

 

Poor Jesus, not only was he crucified for being stupid (renounce yourself as the Messiah of Judaism !) but he probably didn't even exist in the first place so he had no life at all. Poor Jesus  (The Bible revisited) At least Jesus was worth 30 Shekels, pieces of silver (paid to Judus -- roughly $3,000 U.S. of today's money). But I think Jesus was worth more than that. After all, on second thought Judas did not think it was enough money either so he hung himself. too bad.

[WalterP]

10 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Maybe it's the easiest philosophy to compromise if both are generally agreeable people. Since both agree there is no truth to it, both look at each others position and discuss the pros and cons. If either or both wish to compromise they can since both realize there is no ultimate truth involved and they can change their perspective if they want without much consideration, as long as one is not describing a pig and the other a horse.

 

For instance, I'm an atheist following perspectivism, talking to a theist that is unaware of his own philosophy. He says that god exists and god is everywhere and everything, everything physical and all energy. I ask him what powers he thinks god has. Is there a spiritual realm? I ask.. And he says that God has all the same powers as nature including all processes that exist in nature. I say, OK, I understand, then he says there is no spiritual realm. I then say that I agree that matter and energy exist, therefore I agree on your theory of pantheism by your definition of it. So I tell him that by your definition I am a theist too as long as you don't, and can't pray to him. He says OK and I say OK.  Therefore we agree.

 

He may have other ideas about it but at least concerning his primary premise, I can agree to the existence of his god based upon his definition of god with no addendum to it.

 

Pantheory,

 

 

Assuming that you are an 'agreeable' person, could you please give me some examples of the compromises you've made in the 60 years you've held to your own theories?

 

"Of course I believe in my own theories in physics since I've lived with them for over 60 years with little changes to them considering all the new evidence."

 

What you say above suggests that you've compromised very little.

 

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

@WalterP

 

I have gone through a number of anti big bang or alternative theories over the years. Reading through people like Geoff Haselhurst and Milo Wolff and others, they allege that the point particle conception of matter is incorrect, and that a particle of matter is deduced through the simplest explanation as a spherical standing wave vibrating in the wave medium of space itself. 

 

Red shift is explained differently. And they don't subscribe to an expanding universe. The universe is viewed as an area about 10^80 of visibility within an infinite and eternal amount of space. All theory derived from the point particle conception of matter is revised. And the standard model is not relevant as it stands, basically. I just tried to search out both sites and they're not accessible anymore. 

 

But the point here is not their particular theory, but the ramifications of the standard model being misunderstood or misinterpreted in it's current form. I agree that we can't keel over to every Tom, Dick, and Harry alternative cosmologist. But if there's something fundamentally wrong with the way in which we are interpreting something like point particle physics, it would domino effect across the whole of cosmology. No matter how many people believe what, or how big of a consensus there happens to be, it's all subject to be razed to the floor, or nearly to the floor, pending a very fundamental breakthrough in our understanding of the structure of matter, for instance. 

 

That doesn't mean that we have to act as though the standard model is wrong, of course. It may well be correct and well founded. But we don't know for sure that it is as well founded as we tend to assume in majority numbers. So I'm always one foot in and one foot out in these situations where consensus, majority, and groupthink is involved. That's the best that I can manage in terms of objectivity. Because my personal philosophy on objectivity is to at least attempt to remain as objective as possible. And stand corrected and adjust accordingly when objectivity can be tightened up further. 

 

This goes for the global warming debates. 

This goes for all politics. 

This goes for the soft sciences.

This goes for mythology and religion.

This goes for ghosts and goblins. 

This goes for gods and demons. 

This goes for anything. 

 

I will pay attention to consensus and majority to some degree, but always with a watchful eye. I have good reason to apply healthy skepticism to majorities and consensus. I'm careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That's why I do follow along with the advancements in consciousness studies, the astrological content Robert is referring to, and even alternative cosmological arguments as well. I enjoy multidisciplinary thinking. And I realize the many people do not enjoy, and often loath that sort of approach to any given issue. I think it boils down to personality types. 

 

Having said that, I always look at the group or mainstream consensus in terms of personality types. The most intellectually inclined personality types are also among the smallest minority of personality types in the world. So when it comes to break through and outside of the box thinking, we will always be necessarily looking at a minority of people, not so much a majority at any given time. Making appeals to majority somewhat irrelevant at times. It's almost a given that a majority will be off somewhere, just by way of default. And leads right back into "groupthink." 

 

The group, the pack, the majority. 

 

Yes the onus is on the eccentric claiming that everyone else is wrong. It has to be that way. And the eccentric has to have the where-with-all to push through the masses and force their insights on the group in order to receive due recognition for whatever the achievement. It can't just be granted over simply because someone claims that everyone else is wrong. But often times everyone will be wrong. And some eccentric will push through the barriers. 

 

I'm one foot in, one foot out of the group. Ready for inevitable changes to arise. Not too surprised when they do. 

 

 

[pantheory]

Walter my friend,

 

Let's keep this topic less personal. It's not about you or me. Writings should be about Groupthink in this thread.

 

Again I will answer your question but will answer no more outside the topic of Groupthink, and make your questions less personal. Not that I mind, but it's off topic. As you said, you are willing to have another thread in another forum here for our ramblings.

 

Me

"Of course I believe in my own theories in physics since I've lived with them for over 60 years with little changes to them considering all the new evidence."

 

You

"What you say above suggests that you've compromised very little."

 

I've never involved myself much in groups so Groupthink has not effected my beliefs or theories much but it has greatly influenced my journal writings since I have to explain things in accord with a perspective more in accord with the mainstream . As to group participation, I have been to Chinese Christian home study groups, and expect to go again because I like to sing the songs (rock of ages etc.) and my not being Chinese doesn't seem to bother them overtly, and I do like to speak elementary Mandarin    I do have a funny story about it however. Married women there have asked me what I believe. As an atheist, of course, I wouldn't tell them in a group. So I say, I do not like to confide in groups but I will be glad to tell you my beliefs in private. The result, they never reply or bother me again about my beliefs

 

My theory for 60 years has not changed because no observations since then have contradicted it. The foundation theory is called the Pan Theory, a Theory of Everything. It supposedly explains the entire foundations of reality and the cosmos according to logic first. Originally there was no math in it because the theory is based upon logic alone. But when modern cosmology and physics professed their beliefs in the expansion of space, dark matter, dark energy, Inflation, the Higgs particle, quantum theory, point particles, quarks etc. I then formulated unique math equations, my college major, to counter dark energy and dark matter beliefs. Inflation theory was just too ridiculous to consider, and I didn't see how better math could change their belief in the Higgs particle or field, quarks, particle physics, or quantum theory.

 

Bottom line is that, yes, I would compromise and change my theories to whatever extent needed  if any observation or experiment were to give results that were contrary to my theories in my opinion. But for 62 years none have. Before 1958  I was still developing the Pan Theory, thinking of young women, and still do both 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

Ok, Pantheory.

 

Sorry for deviating again.  I'm just struggling to understand something.  That something falls outside the remit of this thread, so we'll have to pick it up elsewhere.

 

As for Groupthink, I don't believe that I have any more to questions to ask or comments to make about it.

 

My current position, in the light of your input Pantheory, is that while I acknowledge that such a things exists, in this thread I've seen no convincing evidence that it is as widespread, as systemic and as damaging to science as you claim.

 

Just as the burden of proof rests upon those Republicans claiming widespread, systemic and damaging electoral fraud, so the burden of proof rests upon you to substantiate your claim with evidence.  The bottom line in both cases is evidence. 

 

But, if the relativism of Perspectivism is invoked, then evidence becomes meaningless.  If three people can look at dog and one sees a cat, the other a bird and the last a fish, then compromise is impossible.  But if all three agree to common rules of interpretation, then compromise is possible.

 

Compromise requires movement away from solipsistic individualism and towards collectivism.

 

And I see no indication of any such compromise from you, Pantheory.

 

(But that is for a different thread.)

 

 

Thank you and goodbye.

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

On 11/11/2020 at 10:06 AM, WalterP said:

Ok, Pantheory.

 

Sorry for deviating again.  I'm just struggling to understand something.  That something falls outside the remit of this thread, so we'll have to pick it up elsewhere.

 

As for Groupthink, I don't believe that I have any more to questions to ask or comments to make about it.

 

My current position, in the light of your input Pantheory, is that while I acknowledge that such a things exists, in this thread I've seen no convincing evidence that it is as widespread, as systemic and as damaging to science as you claim.

 

Just as the burden of proof rests upon those Republicans claiming widespread, systemic and damaging electoral fraud, so the burden of proof rests upon you to substantiate your claim with evidence.  The bottom line in both cases is evidence. 

 

But, if the relativism of Perspectivism is invoked, then evidence becomes meaningless.  If three people can look at dog and one sees a cat, the other a bird and the last a fish, then compromise is impossible.  But if all three agree to common rules of interpretation, then compromise is possible.

 

Compromise requires movement away from solipsistic individualism and towards collectivism.

 

And I see no indication of any such compromise from you, Pantheory.

 

(But that is for a different thread.)

 

 

Thank you and goodbye.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Yes, but don't be concerned about the politics of the colonies. As you know most of us are a bunch of no-account rebels anyway;  few say God bless the queen and only us Tories know much of English history even though we speak English, for the most part.

 

I transferred our off-topic discussions to here if it strikes your fancy.

[alreadyGone]

In my work I have seen groupthink in action many times.

 

I've long noted that otherwise intelligent seemingly sensible humans so easily become unthinking zombies in a group.

 

Again, I'm reminded of the opening scenes in Kubrick's movie of "2001: A Space Odyssey".

[pantheory]

On 1/11/2021 at 7:25 AM, alreadyGone said:

In my work I have seen groupthink in action many times.

 

I've long noted that otherwise intelligent seemingly sensible humans so easily become unthinking zombies in a group.

 

Again, I'm reminded of the opening scenes in Kubrick's movie of "2001: A Space Odyssey".

 

I see Groupthink in effect in more subtle ways in science. When a researcher comes to a conclusion that differs from mainstream science theory he will not publish his research in the belief that either his observations, interpretations, or conclusions are wrong. Groupthink pressure-of-censure or ridicule usually stops him. This could go on for decades before a major adjustment of theory must eventually be made.

 

Maybe even worse is that high-impact journals probably will not publish such non-mainstream research papers because the journal believes its readership would not be interested in such a non-mainstream claim, interpretation, proposal etc., and/or if they do publish it they could be criticized by readers, or lose subscription memberships because of Groupthink.

[alreadyGone]

I get that.

And there are obvious examples of what you are describing.

 

 

What I was fumbling to say is in my experience groupthink is the norm in so many aspects of work and social life.

And from there of course, religious belief and practice. Especially given the many social aspects of same.

 

Men especially, so very inclined toward that sort of chimp behavior as depicted in those opening scenes of '2001:  A Space Odyssey' .

 

No matter what you thought of either the story or Kubrick's depiction of the novel/story, those opening scenes of what it may have been like eleventy-million years ago for early pre-humans were unlike anything ever portrayed on film..

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

3 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

I get that.

And there are obvious examples of what you are describing.

 

 

What I was fumbling to say is in my experience groupthink is the norm in so many aspects of work and social life.

And from there of course, religious belief and practice. Especially given the many social aspects of same.

 

Men especially, so very inclined toward that sort of chimp behavior as depicted in those opening scenes of '2001:  A Space Odyssey' .

 

No matter what you thought of either the story or Kubrick's depiction of the novel/story, those opening scenes of what it may have been like eleventy-million years ago for early pre-humans were unlike anything ever portrayed on film..

 

 

 

I never quite understood the beginning of that movie   Yes, religious Groupthink is overpowering for some religions, but few people realize that similar types of group pressures exist in science. And as you pointed out many social aspects of life involve similar social pressures on thought and expression.

[alreadyGone]

And I should have included mention of science in that regard.

Same in medicine and engineering.

Don't even speak of real-world corporate management.

 

To my thinking, the Peter Principal is sorta derived of groupthink.

And don't doubt the Peter Principal to be as real as daylight.

 

I was distracted by a really really stupid mistake I just made.

Stupid costs...

 

 

 

[pantheory]

21 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

And I should have included mention of science in that regard.

Same in medicine and engineering.

Don't even speak of real-world corporate management.

 

To my thinking, the Peter Principal is sorta derived of groupthink.

And don't doubt the Peter Principal to be as real as daylight.

 

I was distracted by a really really stupid mistake I just made.

Stupid costs...

 

 

I forgot about the Peter Principle. Thanks for reminding me.

 

I'm sure Groupthink occurs in upper level management, but was unaware of it happening at the Engineer's level. Maybe that's because all of my years of Engineering and Management were spent in lower-level tiers.