4 ms·
Two axioms you seem to put forward: 1) You have a right to have unusual, heretical, controversial or just plain dumb opinions. 2) The scientific community is
by polemic 14y ago
Two axioms you seem to put forward:
1) You have a right to have unusual, heretical, controversial or just plain dumb opinions.
2) The scientific community is required to respect, and seriously debate your conclusions, regardless of their foundations.
Point (1) is valid. Calling for book-burning is silly. Some correct ideas do, indeed, seem wacky to begin with.
Point (2) is not. "Lucid" theories are worth almost nothing until backed by scientific rigor, peer review and the weight of evidence. Cf. "intelligent design" - a theory invented out of nowhere as a backstop against evolution. You're more than welcome to believe it (1), but real scientists shouldn't be wasting their time with it (2).
-- EDIT: I felt the need to add...
It's quite one thing to have an idea that you believe passionately, that you spend your life defending, that is ultimately proved true in the fullness of time.
It's quite another to dabble in a wide range of quackery, pushing unfounded positions in everything from constants of physics to animal telepathy and the conciousness of inanimate objects.
That's not perseverance in the face of scientific obstructionism, it's throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks.
- exodust 14y agopolemic, you seem frustrated in your efforts to condemn. Why? Are his ideas dangerous? Have they touched a nerve? Maybe that's a good thing. This talk is not aimed at the scientific community anyway. It's aimed at a TED audience, who love a bit of creative, unconventional thinking with their rigorous scientific discoveries and rock solid demonstrations. So the talk was heavy on the creative, and light on the rigorous scientific demo, but that's ok... we have the option of not buying his book, and taking his ideas with a grain of salt. No need to cry panic, no need to worry. Eventually, ideas such as these either gather momentum or die from lack of evidence. We don't need to put this speaker, or TED on trial just because someone speaks for 18 minutes about intriguing, exotic ideas that you don't like.
- Ao7bei3s 14y agoTED is not a fiction conference.
- greyfade 14y agoI wouldn't say "intelligent design" was invented out of nowhere. It's an old (3000+ years old) concept. The name of it is new, but it's the same old tired dogma.
- GotAnyMegadeth 14y agoIt was invented out of nowhere at one point, even if it was 3000+ years ago.
- Executor 14y agoHow are his ideas dumb? He is proposing to expand scientific inquiry. Your comments seem to prove his point - dogmatism. Using the terms "dumb" or "quackery" really lowers your persuasion. Using your own vocabulary: I guess your "shit" didn't stick to the wall. :)
- polemic 14y agoFirstly, I didn't say his ideas are dumb. I said you have a right to hold dumb ideas. Secondly, some ideas are dumb, some ideas are quackery. It's a good thing to recognise that fact. If you don't like the terminology, well, I'm just saying it like it is.