4 ms·

> The problem with wanting "controversy" in "hard" sciences is that if there's a "controversial" theory of physics or biology, that's really just another way of

> The problem with wanting "controversy" in "hard" sciences is that if there's a "controversial" theory of physics or biology, that's really just another way of saying "there's not convincing evidence in favor of it, and it doesn't provide a productive framework for future research". If it's backed up by evidence, if it's a useful way of thinking that leads to lots of interesting new research, it's not going to be particularly controversial. This is a credulous view of the hard sciences, which many scientists and almost all people who study the philosophy or sociology of science would disagree with. Certainly Kuhn would disagree fundamentally. Many ideas which are uncontroversial within their respective scientific fields today were, in fact, very controversial in decades or centuries past: relativity, quantum physics, plate tectonics, evolution, heliocentrism, ...

boomboomsubban 5y ago
>Many ideas which are uncontroversial within their respective scientific fields today were, in fact, very controversial in decades or centuries past: relativity, quantum physics, plate tectonics, evolution, heliocentrism All of those examples provided a productive framework for future research, and after the research was done were supported by convincing evidence. They wouldn't be considered "controversial" in a modern field, people would just rightly be skeptical until the research bore fruit.
- CrazyStat 5y ago
  > They wouldn't be considered "controversial" in a modern field, people would just rightly be skeptical until the research bore fruit. This is a hypothetical that is obviously impossible to disprove, but I fucking doubt it. Science, including in the hard sciences, is rife with personal animus, envy, and rivalries. Scientists are not dispassionate logic machines who simply maintain a healthy skepticism until the research bears fruit. Many of them will viciously attack your research, you, and the institutions that support you if they feel threatened by your ideas, and they are not above lying and cheating to get their way. As the pithy saying goes, science progresses one funeral at a time. Max Planck--a man who knew a thing or two about advocating controversial ideas--put it slightly more kindly [1]: > A new 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. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - byecomputer 5y ago
    Agreed. Many people in this thread seem to overestimate scientist's ability to operate without ego and underestimate the power of institutions to suppress work it finds objectionable. That sort of environment encourages self-censorship, and many (possibly good) ideas are stuffed away for fear of rocking the boat. It's easier to go with the flow than to stand alone and cast a shadow over your reputation and ability to work in the future.
  - jkhdigital 5y ago
    As a mid-career PhD student in a "hard" field I can attest that this description aligns with my experience. I'm a bit late to the party myself, but very much looking forward to the next generation of scientists who are exposed to the "categorical" approach to applied mathematics from a young age and have no qualms about rebuilding entire scientific fields within this new foundations.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  I invite you to read one of the published papers which does a fantastic job describing how little the scientific method matters when it comes to how people choose to interpret the data presented by the world around them. In short, if a evidence threatens their worldview, it is not believed. 1. https://www.journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/1/1/131/htm https://www.journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/1/1/131/...
- goatlover 5y ago
  A modern example is arguing that volcanic activity killed off the non-avian dinosaurs and not the Chicxulub impact. That's considered quite controversial today, even though volcanoes are implicated in other major extinctions and there was considerable volcanic activity leading up to the Mt. Everest-sized rock or comet hitting the Yucatan peninsula. Also there is the argument that the fossil record shows a lack of dinosaur bones at the K-T boundary, but most paleontologists think the rock or comet did the job. An argument at the other extreme has the impact killing off all non-avian dinosaurs within one hour after the impact across the globe.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

boomboomsubban 5y ago

>Many ideas which are uncontroversial within their respective scientific fields today were, in fact, very controversial in decades or centuries past: relativity, quantum physics, plate tectonics, evolution, heliocentrism All of those examples provided a productive framework for future research, and after the research was done were supported by convincing evidence. They wouldn't be considered "controversial" in a modern field, people would just rightly be skeptical until the research bore fruit.

CrazyStat 5y ago
> They wouldn't be considered "controversial" in a modern field, people would just rightly be skeptical until the research bore fruit. This is a hypothetical that is obviously impossible to disprove, but I fucking doubt it. Science, including in the hard sciences, is rife with personal animus, envy, and rivalries. Scientists are not dispassionate logic machines who simply maintain a healthy skepticism until the research bears fruit. Many of them will viciously attack your research, you, and the institutions that support you if they feel threatened by your ideas, and they are not above lying and cheating to get their way. As the pithy saying goes, science progresses one funeral at a time. Max Planck--a man who knew a thing or two about advocating controversial ideas--put it slightly more kindly [1]: > A new 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. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- byecomputer 5y ago
  Agreed. Many people in this thread seem to overestimate scientist's ability to operate without ego and underestimate the power of institutions to suppress work it finds objectionable. That sort of environment encourages self-censorship, and many (possibly good) ideas are stuffed away for fear of rocking the boat. It's easier to go with the flow than to stand alone and cast a shadow over your reputation and ability to work in the future.
- jkhdigital 5y ago
  As a mid-career PhD student in a "hard" field I can attest that this description aligns with my experience. I'm a bit late to the party myself, but very much looking forward to the next generation of scientists who are exposed to the "categorical" approach to applied mathematics from a young age and have no qualms about rebuilding entire scientific fields within this new foundations.
DangitBobby 5y ago
I invite you to read one of the published papers which does a fantastic job describing how little the scientific method matters when it comes to how people choose to interpret the data presented by the world around them. In short, if a evidence threatens their worldview, it is not believed. 1. https://www.journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/1/1/131/htm https://www.journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/1/1/131/...
goatlover 5y ago
A modern example is arguing that volcanic activity killed off the non-avian dinosaurs and not the Chicxulub impact. That's considered quite controversial today, even though volcanoes are implicated in other major extinctions and there was considerable volcanic activity leading up to the Mt. Everest-sized rock or comet hitting the Yucatan peninsula. Also there is the argument that the fossil record shows a lack of dinosaur bones at the K-T boundary, but most paleontologists think the rock or comet did the job. An argument at the other extreme has the impact killing off all non-avian dinosaurs within one hour after the impact across the globe.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]