3 ms·

that's how dissent in science has always been treated, going back to things like "the earth is round". i'm not saying it's the best system, but it's not new.

that's how dissent in science has always been treated, going back to things like "the earth is round". i'm not saying it's the best system, but it's not new. historically, science gets it right in the end, but shifting the scientific consensus is a long and slow process that happens among scientists, not something that uninformed masses contribute to in any meaningful way. the barrier to getting widespread acceptance of your dissenting theory is much higher than for getting widespread acceptance of your theory that matches the status quo. i don't think it's obvious that there's a benefit to making it easier to promote ideas that contradict the generally accepted science. if it's correct, smart people will eventually be convinced of that. promoting fringe theories on twitter amongst people who have no underlying knowledge of the subject matter won't do anything to advance the most correct ideas, only the loudest ideas or the ideas that most match our pre-existing biases.

mach1ne 5y ago
> if it's correct, smart people will eventually be convinced of that. That's not how science has historically worked. Smart people won't be convinced, new people will. Status quo changes when the previous generation is laid to rest. This is the result of the academia being just another human social system obeying the same laws of power as all the rest, thus inheriting all their flaws.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  There are plenty of cases where things have moved much faster than that - e.g. the adoption of QM and relativity, dark energy becoming a respectable hypothesis, plate tectonics, dinosaur extinction via impact... In each of these cases, either new evidence or a new explanation for previously-puzzling evidence was key.
  - monort 5y ago
    It took 50 years for plate tectonics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#History_of_the_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#History_of_the...
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      Are you not conflating continental drift with plate tectonics? The former was, for several decades, not widely accepted on account of the lack of a plausible mechanism. The latter is not the theory that the continents drift, but it provided the missing mechanism for how they do. Acceptance of both was swift once the distinctive paleomagnetic patterning of the oceanic crust was discovered. This scientific revolution was data-driven.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Science has often worked like that. As an example consider Galileo's discovery of the phases of Venus. It immediately destroyed the Ptolemaic model of the solar system. Even supporters of that system overwhelmingly immediately abandoned it.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Many substituted the hybrid model where everything but Earth and the moon went around the sun, and the sun and moon went around the Earth. But that was reaching, and they must have known it.

mach1ne 5y ago

> if it's correct, smart people will eventually be convinced of that. That's not how science has historically worked. Smart people won't be convinced, new people will. Status quo changes when the previous generation is laid to rest. This is the result of the academia being just another human social system obeying the same laws of power as all the rest, thus inheriting all their flaws.

mannykannot 5y ago
There are plenty of cases where things have moved much faster than that - e.g. the adoption of QM and relativity, dark energy becoming a respectable hypothesis, plate tectonics, dinosaur extinction via impact... In each of these cases, either new evidence or a new explanation for previously-puzzling evidence was key.
- monort 5y ago
  It took 50 years for plate tectonics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#History_of_the_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#History_of_the...
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    Are you not conflating continental drift with plate tectonics? The former was, for several decades, not widely accepted on account of the lack of a plausible mechanism. The latter is not the theory that the continents drift, but it provided the missing mechanism for how they do. Acceptance of both was swift once the distinctive paleomagnetic patterning of the oceanic crust was discovered. This scientific revolution was data-driven.
pfdietz 5y ago
Science has often worked like that. As an example consider Galileo's discovery of the phases of Venus. It immediately destroyed the Ptolemaic model of the solar system. Even supporters of that system overwhelmingly immediately abandoned it.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Many substituted the hybrid model where everything but Earth and the moon went around the sun, and the sun and moon went around the Earth. But that was reaching, and they must have known it.