4 ms·

The point though is that there _was_ evidence. They just didn't see it (at first) or chose to wittingly or unwittingly undermine it (a decade later). Skepticis

The point though is that there _was_ evidence. They just didn't see it (at first) or chose to wittingly or unwittingly undermine it (a decade later). Skepticism of results is one thing, but wilful pursuance of the "only way to approach things is the way I know of, every other way has to be proven beyond any other metric I would need for my own way to be considered" is another.

Retric 8y ago
They can only respond to evidence they have. This is the entire point of publishing research. It’s the people collecting evidence’s job to make it public. Especially if it’s groundbreaking.
- unimployed 8y ago
  And again, that’s using a position of authority to dismiss new evidence on speculation rather than facts or science. Good science exercises restraint in quickness to judge new evidence, allowing time for discovery to work as needed. The opinionated orthodoxy of science doesn’t contemplate a wait and see approach, because the scientific method takes a backseat to other concerns such as politics, pride, prestige, funding, and innumerable other unscientific motivations in opinionated science.
Farradfahren 8y ago
The problem is, that a theory school is a network of careers, based upon something that a new school could either render completely obsolete or draw funds away from. So those established are often literally fighting for there lifelihood. These attacks are a propertie of people who have alot to loose, which is ironic because most of those established head figures have tenure. Yet, there court and power could vannish. Maybe some power-politics intrigue mechanism could change that. If you can convert alot of current low establishment (post-docs) to sign secretly for your theory, you could overturn the whole powerstructure in a coup, unless the ruling person defuses the situation by claiming the results to be true first.

Retric 8y ago

They can only respond to evidence they have. This is the entire point of publishing research. It’s the people collecting evidence’s job to make it public. Especially if it’s groundbreaking.

unimployed 8y ago
And again, that’s using a position of authority to dismiss new evidence on speculation rather than facts or science. Good science exercises restraint in quickness to judge new evidence, allowing time for discovery to work as needed. The opinionated orthodoxy of science doesn’t contemplate a wait and see approach, because the scientific method takes a backseat to other concerns such as politics, pride, prestige, funding, and innumerable other unscientific motivations in opinionated science.

Farradfahren 8y ago

The problem is, that a theory school is a network of careers, based upon something that a new school could either render completely obsolete or draw funds away from. So those established are often literally fighting for there lifelihood. These attacks are a propertie of people who have alot to loose, which is ironic because most of those established head figures have tenure. Yet, there court and power could vannish. Maybe some power-politics intrigue mechanism could change that. If you can convert alot of current low establishment (post-docs) to sign secretly for your theory, you could overturn the whole powerstructure in a coup, unless the ruling person defuses the situation by claiming the results to be true first.