5 ms·

Agassiz, who is still remembered for his contributions to geology & fossil taxonomy, can't possibly be a great scientist as he committed wrongthink over a cent

Agassiz, who is still remembered for his contributions to geology & fossil taxonomy, can't possibly be a great scientist as he committed wrongthink over a century ago. Eventually, the only great scientists will be ones who are still available to have their opinions policed by modern progressives.

77pt77 9y ago
The man denied evolution. Completely. He believed creationism and even went so far as "creatively" interpreting religious documents to support his own biases. All this in the late 1800s. I'm not usually on this side of the debate but here I think it's safe to say that his non-agreeableness and personal biases led him to the wrong conclusions and that is very relevant to this submission. The more I read about his work the more I reach the conclusion that this was a man that achieved social and academic success but was a failure as a man of science.
watwut 9y ago
Those things might be related through. A person being "not be diverted even for an instant" from what he wants for himself, because he considers himself above everyone else probably is related to the same person being attracted to theory that pseudo-scientifically strokes his own ego at expense of somebody else. Both things might be results of the same personality trait. On personal side, if your personal wishes are really over everything else, you are likely to go further in your personal interests - however your family will be harmed in the process. On political and pseudo scientific side, you will be attracted to more cruel self serving theories.
lacampbell 9y ago
Eventually, the only great scientists will be ones who are still available to have their opinions policed by modern progressives. I think that's becoming less and less true. I'd say we've already reached the nadir of progressivism in the west.
- willhslade 9y ago
  Well... if history is any lesson, the Weimar era of Germany is probably the nadir. We've got a ways to go.
arjie 9y ago
Hey, man, if you want to believe in frauds, go right ahead. Discrimination between useful hypotheses and rubbish ones is how knowledge advances. If you want to hold up losers as your heroes, don't be surprised when no one follows.
- linksnapzz 9y ago
  Unfortunately for you, Agassiz's hypotheses about a great many things were useful and correct. But look on the bright side, if a putative belief in creationism would prevent anyone from hearing about a given researcher's other & more defensible work; we would all be laughing at that silly creationist Issac Newton.
  - arjie 9y ago
    Hey, I can use his results while still decrying him. And I intend to. I call it standing on the shoulders of giants while chipping off their faces. Seriously, though, you're right. One shouldn't dismiss all of people's work just because they were wrong about some things. But whether someone is a 'great scientist' is a bit unimportant in that sense.
Alex3917 9y ago
> Eventually, the only great scientists will be ones who are still available to have their opinions policed by modern progressives. Progressives have historically believed in government transparency, and modern ones generally support infrastructure investments, but there isn't really any social agenda. You may be thinking of liberals.

77pt77 9y ago

The man denied evolution. Completely. He believed creationism and even went so far as "creatively" interpreting religious documents to support his own biases. All this in the late 1800s. I'm not usually on this side of the debate but here I think it's safe to say that his non-agreeableness and personal biases led him to the wrong conclusions and that is very relevant to this submission. The more I read about his work the more I reach the conclusion that this was a man that achieved social and academic success but was a failure as a man of science.

watwut 9y ago

Those things might be related through. A person being "not be diverted even for an instant" from what he wants for himself, because he considers himself above everyone else probably is related to the same person being attracted to theory that pseudo-scientifically strokes his own ego at expense of somebody else. Both things might be results of the same personality trait. On personal side, if your personal wishes are really over everything else, you are likely to go further in your personal interests - however your family will be harmed in the process. On political and pseudo scientific side, you will be attracted to more cruel self serving theories.

lacampbell 9y ago

Eventually, the only great scientists will be ones who are still available to have their opinions policed by modern progressives. I think that's becoming less and less true. I'd say we've already reached the nadir of progressivism in the west.

willhslade 9y ago
Well... if history is any lesson, the Weimar era of Germany is probably the nadir. We've got a ways to go.

arjie 9y ago

Hey, man, if you want to believe in frauds, go right ahead. Discrimination between useful hypotheses and rubbish ones is how knowledge advances. If you want to hold up losers as your heroes, don't be surprised when no one follows.

linksnapzz 9y ago
Unfortunately for you, Agassiz's hypotheses about a great many things were useful and correct. But look on the bright side, if a putative belief in creationism would prevent anyone from hearing about a given researcher's other & more defensible work; we would all be laughing at that silly creationist Issac Newton.
- arjie 9y ago
  Hey, I can use his results while still decrying him. And I intend to. I call it standing on the shoulders of giants while chipping off their faces. Seriously, though, you're right. One shouldn't dismiss all of people's work just because they were wrong about some things. But whether someone is a 'great scientist' is a bit unimportant in that sense.

Alex3917 9y ago

> Eventually, the only great scientists will be ones who are still available to have their opinions policed by modern progressives. Progressives have historically believed in government transparency, and modern ones generally support infrastructure investments, but there isn't really any social agenda. You may be thinking of liberals.