NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6041425" data-attributes="member: 2011">Actually, I should qualify that statement. I do think that SOME scientists tend to be blind to theories which don't match what they've believed most of their lives. In fact, the reason that science took so long to get off the ground (so to speak) is because of firmly held belief of many scientists throughout time. The ancient Greeks could have gotten us maybe a half millenium more advanced today (course, none of us would actually be here) if they would have been as concerned about practical applications of science as they were about "abstract truth" of science (and philosophy and math). The steam engine could have easily been invented over two thousand years ago because steam powered toys existed.There are many examples of scientists totally disagreeing on the exact same data. Look at Steady State vs. Big Bang. Both theories have had a ton of modifications since they were first proposed to match additional data (which is a reasonable thing to do), but obviously, they both cannot be correct. One of these ideas was only really dropped completely by almost all scientists in the last two decades. And in fact, it's possible that they are both incorrect and that the scientific community is misinterpreting the results being found.There are also examples of peer review that dismissed research that was perfectly valid, but controversial.Scientists are people too and can be just as dogmatic as any other person. They also get research funds for specific projects and if those projects start to falter, just like many other people, they can distort their conclusions of the data to more closely match the expectations. Not necessarily the falsification of data and maybe not even intentionally, but skewing conclusions or omitting inconsistencies to match current theory or to match a specific theory.As Morris Kline wrote (talking about mathematicians): "Many were modest; others extremely egotistical and vain beyond toleration. One finds scoundrels such as Cardan, and models of rectitude. Some were generous in their recognition of other great minds; others were resentful and jealous and even stole ideas to boost their own reputations. Disputes about priority of discovery abound."Do you really think that scientists are really that morally superior than anyone else? Do you think that anyone whose job is dependent on them acquiring results will not get results?And even open mindedness in the scientific community means viewing new claims through the filter of established knowledge. Not true open mindedness, but open mindedness with hard wired caveats. And, this is how it should be. But, it does lead to a certain level of closed mindedness when doing so.Obviously, not all scientists are close minded. Many are very open minded and try new things. But some do new experiments to support their theories, not to disprove them. And, there are examples of not just closed mindedness, but actual intellectual dishonesty.Diederik StapelJan Hendrik SchönHwang Woo-sukEmil RuppMichael BellesilesLuk Van ParijsScott ReubenJon SudbøJust like all people, there are good scientists and bad ones. Open minded ones and ones who consider anyone who disagrees with them to be a fool. Ones who will argue with you and ones who will go "Hmmm, I hadn't considered that. Let's do an experiment.".I don't think you can paint the entire scientific community with the broad brush of most scientists being the most open minded individuals around.</blockquote>

Verification