4 ms·

There have always been the recalcitrant "that's how it's always been done around here" types that often push back even when confronted with evidence. Take, for

There have always been the recalcitrant "that's how it's always been done around here" types that often push back even when confronted with evidence. Take, for example, Ignaz Semmelweis[1] - he had the evidence that it works but he couldn't explain how washing hands could decrease mortality in hospitals. Few people took him seriously, he suffered a nervous breakdown and died. Afterwards it took Pasteur and Lister to get people to actually accept the theory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

zamalek 11y ago
I do understand that it is a recurring theme. This belief approach to science can be scientifically proven to be a bad idea (given evidence such as yours). While every chance should be made to further explore our current assumptions (such as with the LHC), we shouldn't be neglecting low hanging fruit that challenges our ideas (such as the EMDrive). If as much as 1% of the money that is being spent on LHC went to "anomalous science" we'd likely have a conclusive answer on whether the EMDrive doesn't work. Science is tool that disproves, and we've been hacking it into a proofing tool for far too long. It's time to go back to basics and figure out more about what we don't know. > McCulloch’s theory makes two testable predictions. Think about the cost of either of those experiments - vanishing in the face of other science that is being performed today. If science wants to see the EMDrive go away, and is certain that it doesn't work, a comparatively small grant is all that it takes.
- ajuc 11y ago
  We need Antinobel prize for disproving stuff.
tankenmate 11y ago
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. -- Max Planck

zamalek 11y ago

I do understand that it is a recurring theme. This belief approach to science can be scientifically proven to be a bad idea (given evidence such as yours). While every chance should be made to further explore our current assumptions (such as with the LHC), we shouldn't be neglecting low hanging fruit that challenges our ideas (such as the EMDrive). If as much as 1% of the money that is being spent on LHC went to "anomalous science" we'd likely have a conclusive answer on whether the EMDrive doesn't work. Science is tool that disproves, and we've been hacking it into a proofing tool for far too long. It's time to go back to basics and figure out more about what we don't know. > McCulloch’s theory makes two testable predictions. Think about the cost of either of those experiments - vanishing in the face of other science that is being performed today. If science wants to see the EMDrive go away, and is certain that it doesn't work, a comparatively small grant is all that it takes.

ajuc 11y ago
We need Antinobel prize for disproving stuff.

tankenmate 11y ago

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. -- Max Planck