6 ms·

Why is it bad science to be radically questioning the status quo? For centuries many major scientific breakthroughs have been in spite of the dogma of the scien

Why is it bad science to be radically questioning the status quo? For centuries many major scientific breakthroughs have been in spite of the dogma of the scientific community of its day. Statements like good science = "It does not fly in the face of the broad existing body of scientific knowledge" or bad science = "Has failed to convince many mainstream scientists of its truth" is just garbage. Sickening to me, in fact. Everything that so-called "fringe psuedoscientists" complain about in regards to the arrogant elitism of the self-proclaimed gatekeepers of science are validated with this kind of letter. Dislike.

jlgreco 14y ago
It isn't "bad science" to be suggesting something radical... but it is suspicious. > "Everything that so-called "fringe psuedoscientists" complain about in regards to the arrogant elitism" Either you are not very familiar with the claims many psuedoscientists make about that, or you are using a very loose definition of "everything". There is no conspiracy to silence anybody. TED is just advocating very basic common sense and skepticism.
lutusp 14y ago
> Why is it bad science to be radically questioning the status quo? It's not bad science unless the "questioning" isn't accompanied by evidence. Science is not steered by authority, but by evidence. If you have authority but no evidence, scientists won't listen to you. Example Nobel Prizewinner Linus Pauling's claims about vitamin C and the common cold. If you have evidence but no authority, scientists will listen to you. Example Albert Einstein, who as a lowly patent clerk overthrew much of the physics of his day -- but only after evidence and observation began to support his theories. In science, evidence means everything, reputation means nothing. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.
- mogrim 14y ago
  > In science, evidence means everything, reputation means nothing. That's a bit optimistic, in the long run it may be true, but over shorter time periods reputation and authority often discourage proper criticism.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > ... .but over shorter time periods reputation and authority often discourage proper criticism. Yes, but that's not science. When people pay attention to authority and claimed expertise, they're abandoning science. "Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion." — Richard Feynman
    - mogrim 14y ago
      No, it's not science, it's human nature. (And I really hope you're being ironic using a Feynman quote there!)
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > And I really hope you're being ironic using a Feynman quote there! If you had met Feynman, you would realize when he said something like that, he wasn't posing as any kind of authority. This naturally reminds me of one of my favorite Einstein quotes: "To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself."
        robbiep 14y ago
        Paul, I just looked you up and realised of course you would have met Feynman. Although he died when I was 3, Reading books by and about him when I was going through my final years of undergrad changed the course of my life - I am now a final year medical student due to the influence of him and, subsequently, Carl Sagan. so, I guess this is just a hand wave across the internet at someone who has achieved much and met one or more of my intellectual idols. ps. I find your aperger's by proxy article very interesting.
        lutusp 14y ago
        > ... I find your aperger's by proxy article very interesting. Thanks for reading! Here's another more recent article on the same general topic: http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology
- jaredcwhite 14y ago
  I agree with your last sentence. However, we're not talking about science as a discipline. We're talking about the community of human beings within the scientific community. In that regard, reputation quite often trumps evidence. If you don't believe that, you have a far higher opinion of human nature than is warranted.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > However, we're not talking about science as a discipline ... I have to say that, when I use the word "science", I'm not talking about scientists, but scientific principles. I do this because science exists primarily to defend against all the ways scientists will get it wrong without the discipline science provides. > We're talking about the community of human beings within the scientific community. It is because of that "community" and its foibles that science exists and has its present form. > If you don't believe that, you have a far higher opinion of human nature than is warranted. I hope you see now that it's exactly the reverse of your assumption.

jlgreco 14y ago

It isn't "bad science" to be suggesting something radical... but it is suspicious. > "Everything that so-called "fringe psuedoscientists" complain about in regards to the arrogant elitism" Either you are not very familiar with the claims many psuedoscientists make about that, or you are using a very loose definition of "everything". There is no conspiracy to silence anybody. TED is just advocating very basic common sense and skepticism.

lutusp 14y ago

> Why is it bad science to be radically questioning the status quo? It's not bad science unless the "questioning" isn't accompanied by evidence. Science is not steered by authority, but by evidence. If you have authority but no evidence, scientists won't listen to you. Example Nobel Prizewinner Linus Pauling's claims about vitamin C and the common cold. If you have evidence but no authority, scientists will listen to you. Example Albert Einstein, who as a lowly patent clerk overthrew much of the physics of his day -- but only after evidence and observation began to support his theories. In science, evidence means everything, reputation means nothing. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.

mogrim 14y ago
> In science, evidence means everything, reputation means nothing. That's a bit optimistic, in the long run it may be true, but over shorter time periods reputation and authority often discourage proper criticism.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > ... .but over shorter time periods reputation and authority often discourage proper criticism. Yes, but that's not science. When people pay attention to authority and claimed expertise, they're abandoning science. "Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion." — Richard Feynman
  - mogrim 14y ago
    No, it's not science, it's human nature. (And I really hope you're being ironic using a Feynman quote there!)
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > And I really hope you're being ironic using a Feynman quote there! If you had met Feynman, you would realize when he said something like that, he wasn't posing as any kind of authority. This naturally reminds me of one of my favorite Einstein quotes: "To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself."
      - robbiep 14y ago
        Paul, I just looked you up and realised of course you would have met Feynman. Although he died when I was 3, Reading books by and about him when I was going through my final years of undergrad changed the course of my life - I am now a final year medical student due to the influence of him and, subsequently, Carl Sagan. so, I guess this is just a hand wave across the internet at someone who has achieved much and met one or more of my intellectual idols. ps. I find your aperger's by proxy article very interesting.
        lutusp 14y ago
        > ... I find your aperger's by proxy article very interesting. Thanks for reading! Here's another more recent article on the same general topic: http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology
jaredcwhite 14y ago
I agree with your last sentence. However, we're not talking about science as a discipline. We're talking about the community of human beings within the scientific community. In that regard, reputation quite often trumps evidence. If you don't believe that, you have a far higher opinion of human nature than is warranted.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > However, we're not talking about science as a discipline ... I have to say that, when I use the word "science", I'm not talking about scientists, but scientific principles. I do this because science exists primarily to defend against all the ways scientists will get it wrong without the discipline science provides. > We're talking about the community of human beings within the scientific community. It is because of that "community" and its foibles that science exists and has its present form. > If you don't believe that, you have a far higher opinion of human nature than is warranted. I hope you see now that it's exactly the reverse of your assumption.