Science is close-minded

Pyrotex · 05-11-2009

Many are called, but few are chosen.
Many people become scientists -- or, at least, they earn the degrees and credentials that enable them to claim to be scientists, fully qualified members of the "community of scientists".
But not all of them will make break-through discoveries. But this has very little to do with whether or not they are "close-minded".

To begin with, Krim, please define "close-minded". What do you mean by that phrase when you use it?

Being a "scientist" can take many forms. Some do brilliant work at teaching students, some manage to make new discoveries that do not shake the current paradigm, some find or invent new ways to measure universal constants to ever more precision, some confirm (or invalidate) the findings of others, some find commercial applications for older science, some find physical applications for older mathematics, some perform experiments that fail but in so doing eliminate some promising new theory.

These contributions to Science are all valid and important. All these contributions can, and often do, contribute to eventual Paradigm Shifts (which will bear somebody else's name--but that's okay). The majority of "scientists" do their best out of a love for the work; many will find themselves simply at the wrong place, or the wrong time, to get to do the BIG Science. Others will lack the inter-personal skills necessary to be a member of a scientific team. Others will be pulled away by personal interests. And yes, some may be dogmatic about this or that accepted Theory and be unwilling to consider alternatives.

To say that any "scientist" who doesn't personally accomplish cutting-edge Science, is somehow "close-minded", is irrational and unsubstantiated. All the more so if the speaker is not him or herself a professional scientist who has spent significant years working with and among them.

maddog · 05-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

I agree that science as an idea is not close minded, but I think that the average scientist is.

A blanket statement that though maybe your opinion, does not map well onto "scientists". For the following reasons:
1. Not all scientist behave nor think the same. They are individuals and can think as they wish.
2. Science as followed by scientists are indoctrinated into a line of thinking that may have
some follow more than lead. This does not apply to all. And even a "follower" may come
up with such an innovative idea so as to become a future "leader" in his field.
3. The word "average" can not be used in any other fashion than to talk about the
aggregate of a collection. So an "average scientist" does not speak to any scientist in
particular. Otherwise this speaking wouldn't be scientific.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

They may be able to take bodies of knowledge that other people hand them and learn them detail by detail, but they could never create one. Knowing this, they come to the conclusion that science is only created piece by piece by tons of scientists figuring out one little thing at a time.

Would this still be about the "average scientist" or are there "other" kinds ??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

Thus, whenever someone too creative comes along, they are angered and unobjective about it. "Who does this person think they are?" is the kind of crap you hear from people like this. In addition, though they may be able to work with a body of knowledge created by someone else, if there is anything left out of that body of knowledge that was just "known" to the person who created it, it may be violated by these types. For instance, they may violate a general principal of all human knowledge because it seemed like a valid manipulation or extension of a mathematical system.

This is beginning to sound like a rant now (colored by personal experience)...

maddog