# Good reason for publishing a defective theory **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 7, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-reason-for-publishing-a-defective-theory/706594 "2014-12-07T20:19:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-reason-for-publishing-a-defective-theory/706594/1 "2014-12-07T20:19:24Z")
Lets suppoose you were very involved in something that had very liitle research done on it. It had a very small pool of experts who did have some interest but overall no indepth reasearch has ever been conducted on it. Now suppose I cared little about my personnal reputation as a scientific writer but really did care very much about getting some info I was not capable of getting on my own. I decided to use a startegy where I would publish something very controversial that would upset the sensibilities of real scientists and make them feel challenged enough to right this horrible wrong that has been published. This might involve several different fields so each of the fields needed twould have to be somewhat challenged or upset. Has a scenario similar to this ever happened that amounted to something significant? Even if the original publisher believed his own BS and was just wrong, but preferably where the publisher knew what he was doing. Any Examples? ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Panic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/don_t_panic/32/398_2.png) [@Don\_t\_Panic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Panic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-reason-for-publishing-a-defective-theory/706594/2 "2014-12-07T21:11:20Z")
One example that comes to mind is the [no-cloning theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem) in quantum mechanics. The theorem states that you can’t exactly replicate an arbitrary unknown quantum state. Its discovery was prompted by a 1981 article by physicist [Nick Herbert](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Herbert_%28physicist%29), where he proposed a way to send information faster than light using quantum entanglement. The publication of the article was approved by Asher Peres, who knew that it had to be wrong. The reason for publishing it anyway was that Peres couldn’t pin down \*why \*it was wrong, and he wanted to get people thinking about it. Quting Peres (via Wiki): > [@](#): > > I was the referee who approved the publication of Nick Herbert’s FLASH paper, knowing perfectly well that it was wrong. I explain why my decision was the correct one, and I briefly review the progress to which it led. The result was the aforementioned no-cloning theorem, proved by Wootters, Zurek and Dieks in 1982, and physics was saved from superluminal moton and time traval paradoxes once again. The theorem is also important for quantum computing and other areas of quantum physics. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2014, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-reason-for-publishing-a-defective-theory/706594/3 "2014-12-07T22:47:45Z")
This is basically how science works, except that the “publisher” usually believes it (or most of it). Of course, it has to look plausible enough, in teh first place, for others to even think it is _worth_ debunking or disproving. That is usually the hard part. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2014, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-reason-for-publishing-a-defective-theory/706594/4 "2014-12-07T23:01:30Z")
> [@](#): > > This is basically how science works, except that the “publisher” usually believes it (or most of it). I wouldn’t even say that. Most working researchers have an idea or two which they expect is probably wrong, but which they pursue anyway because, if true, it could be huge. They even work with ideas which they _know_ are untrue, because the techniques for studying those ideas might turn out to be applicable to other fields more relevant to reality. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2014, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-reason-for-publishing-a-defective-theory/706594/5 "2014-12-07T23:09:05Z")
Just a few moments ago I recieved a rough draft from a well accepted doctorate. I had this in mind when I started the thread but didn’t expect it until several months from now. He reffered to my methods as Edisonian and his methods as Newtonian. He has readjusted some of his computer modeling interpetaions and is looking at some things not previously looked at. I am very pleased with this. His response was to an open letter I had put out a few weeks prior in which I boldly stated my theories and test methods on a very contoversial subject.