3 ms·
Looking at your methodology critically is crucial to all fields of science though, as is changing your conclusions and interpretations as more findings come for
by el_cujo 7y ago
Looking at your methodology critically is crucial to all fields of science though, as is changing your conclusions and interpretations as more findings come forward. Dismissing someone outright for challenging something that has become dogma is anti-scientific even if that dogma is based on facts. If it's actually true, then it will stand up to scrutiny.
- leto_ii 7y agoI absolutely agree. However I'm not at all sure Piketty's ideas are dogma. If anything he's the challenger to the neoliberal dogma. Secondly, the fact that there are diverging sides to an issue doesn't mean those sides have the same likelihood of being true. To take a trivial example, flat-earthers are challenging the dogma that the Earth is round (spherical to be more precise) - should this mean that their position should be taken seriously?
- ikeboy 7y agoYes, Piketty and co are the challengers. Therefore the burden of proof is on them to convince people their ideas are true, and presenting their ideas without pointing out how the rest of the field thinks of them would be the analogue of your climate deniers in your comment above.