Quote:
Originally Posted by REASON
First of all, science has no mind. Science is a method.
|
Perhaps I should have asked if scientists were close-minded...
Quote:
|
I would say that the scientific method is closed to conjecture or speculation as qualifying evidence in support of a theory.
|
Right. The problem comes when ideas are rejected and the science is labeled as "closed" and unwilling to change. How many times have you seen this happen here? Phrases such as "Science needs to keep an open mind. Einstein said that creativity is most important. They persecuted Galileo, but he was right. Science stifles because it holds on to its dogmatic theories...etc...etc..."
Quote:
|
The scientific community may appear closed minded in their rejection of certain claims. But I would posit that that arrises out of protectionism of scientific integrity. I mean, consider the vast amount of unsupported conjecture presented as truth or fact that circulates through societies worldwide distorting perception. The scientific community is obligated to demand that information be properly categorized relative to how well it can be substantiated.
|
Indeed. This gets to the heart of the matter.
Quote:
|
One's awareness of this is relative to how at odds their position or belief is relative to the general consensus. If your understanding or opinion is consistent with a majority position, concerns of group think are typically unrecognized.
|
This is a very interesting point. "concerns of group think" is such a phrase that advocates of "close-minded science" would promote. On the outside, I see how people could perceive science like this. (after all, we're all human...with all the psycho- baggage)
Quote:
|
The truth is, IMHO, it is the one who is of the minority opinion that is most often taking a defensive stance. It only makes sense considering they are likely to face a greater challenge, have more to prove, and are likely to feel ganged upon. From a scientific standpoint, one with a minority opinion is likely lacking empirical evidence in support of their position. If the evidence were there, they likely would find that they are with the consensus.
|
Not necessarily. Many scientists have presented great evidence, only to be dismissed. Indeed they are always a minority in the current scientific thought. Galileo *is* a great example of this. It's unfortunate that people so often use his name to decry the injustices of people treating their (usually completely bunk) theories as garbage.
Quote:
|
If someone regularly finds themselves at odds with the consensus, than it may be worthwhile for them to examine whether they are really adopting valid positions, or just resisting the consensus based on personal issues.
|
Indeed!
Quote:
|
The scientific community is not obligated to the sensitivities of the general public.
|
That's a great little quote right there.
Quote:
|
They are obligated to producing legitimate, defensible, facts and information to support hypotheses and theories. Their intent is to weed out the conjecture, and falsify invalid calims so as to be clear about what the data and facts imply. The same applies here at Hypography.
|
Indeed. It's quite frustrating when this is repeatedly passed-off as 'elitism' etc.
Quote:
|
Charges of elitism in the scientific community, I tend to think, are made by those who find their beliefs rejected by the science. It would seem odd for someone who's beliefs are supported by science to then turn around and accuse the science of being elitist.
|
Indeed.
