intfiction.org

Oh yes, it is. Scientists (and other intellectuals) certainly don't regard each other as infallible in any way. Good scientists (and other intellectuals) don't regard themselves as infallible either.

What can legitimately make people mad is the dismissal of scientifically collected and tested evidence in favour of haphazard data arbitrarily presented as conclusive falsification of whole branches of science on purportedly scientific grounds. That is when someone comes along, presents some data, and says: “These pieces of evidence that I lay before you and that you, professional scientists, consciously choose to ignore – these pieces of evidence scientifically and conclusively prove that you are mere humbugs.” It's not hard to see how maddening that must be.

Scientific methods was and is developed precisely to guard against misinterpretations of data, hasty jumps to conclusions, prejudices, subjective influences, and anything else that would detract from an objective interpretation of data. This doesn't mean that scientists always get things right (and I guess they're generally well aware of that); it doesn't even mean that the best opinions of experts are NECESSARILY good indicators of the truth of any theory or teaching; but it might be hoped that it is ACTUALLY a good indicator of the truth of theories that fall squarely inside their area of expertise.

It does happen, though, and ever too often, that scientists venture out of their areas of expertise into philosophy (I guess science often raises philosophical problems) and claim that quantum physics or behavioral science or whatever has solved the philosophical problems of free will or of the nature of mind or of rational thinking or of intentionality or of metaphysics or of some part of ethics even. They seldom have. Science of course provides data that philosophers have to take into account, but that's another matter. Science only ever solves philosophical problems by coming up with new scientific methods for studying previously philosophical questions.

And presumably it happens that scientists venture into other non-scientific areas, too (theology or whatever, where they are no more experts than I). And I suppose that in these areas, too, the proper response is not that of trying to disprove scientific theories either scientifically, theologically, or philosophically, but of pointing out where they leave scientific theory and enter theology or philosophy or whatever.

_________________
Man ska inte tro allt man tänker.

Yes, I know that, even if I sometimes struggle with accepting it. Ultimately, scientists and scholars have much more accurate information and knowledge than I will ever have. I don't have the skill and knowledge to create some of the unquestioned theories that I would prefer to be less unquestioned.


When another theory is offered, it shouldn't be condemned out of hand, even if the people who offered the theory didn't have the professional scientific background of those who framed the accepted theory. There are serious scholars who will probably never be considered anything other than "fringe scientists", but if their ideas do the facts (to some degree, as nothing would ever fit all the facts perfectly), they should be given place. Really, there shouldn't be any "fringe scientists"; the division should only be between real scientists who use the scientific method and those who are just sensationalists.


That sounds like a wise and balanced thought to me. However, it would be good to remember that the scientific consensus once held that the earth was flat.


Same with me. But neither of you came across that way.


Honestly, I'm a little confused too....

I certainly can't assert that. Professional scientists and other scholars have much more knowledge, and their theories are probably very good as models. That doesn't mean that they know the best way to interpret their knowledge.


That's very understandable.


Great insight! That's sort of where I was having trouble going with my thoughts. Scholars shouldn't be able to lay down a dogma based on their interpretation of facts.

This topic has a lot of really well-reasoned and insightful discussion going on so I'm having trouble trying to work in this URL in naturally.

_________________
we gotta move these refrigerators

Fair enough. I think, though, that fewer theories than you might think are actually "unquestioned" among scientists. Note that I'm interpreting your use of "theory" to mean a theory in the scientific sense ("this is an explanatory model that can be falsified thus"), not the everyday term that basically means "this is my take on it." Stop me if my assumption is incorrect.


That seems reasonable, and is in fact what has happened in any number of breakthroughs throughout history. I'd hesitate to present the dichotomy between scientific method contra sensationalists. Many would believe they adhere to the scientific method yet do not (a phenomenon by no means restricted to non-scientists!). Others would believe the scientific method has "holes" to it, that intuition or divine guidance or a thousand other things is to be preferred.

Above all else, however, a scientist or a dabbler must always be ready and willing to examine his or her assumptions. That's an ideal, of course, and scientists can be hidebound or reactionary just as anyone else. However, the important thing is that there has to be a common format to the proposed ideas. Every author of an idea must be prepared for the possibility of being wrong. Every idea that is advanced must be falsifiable. One example of this is Charles Darwin saying, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." He was prepared and indeed willing to face refutation.


It did? I can name no society off-hand with a formal evidence-based tradition of science that held this belief. But yeah, the essence of your statement remains. The thing is, that only means that the prevailing theory is inaccurate. Once its axioms are established, a spherical earth is a simpler, infinitely more accurate model, and is fairly easily verified even with stone-age technology.



And it does happen. Arguably, the true utility of the scientific method is that it offers (some amount of) self-correction, and new ways of accomplishing old things.

Take one of my favorite stories, that of Fermat's Last Theorem. It's become a bit of a legend and deserves to be taken with a grain of salt as I'm not even remotely qualified to comment on the actual mathematics involved, but I know the reader's digest version. Pierre Fermat, a great mathematician, was a bit of an odd duck. He was active in the 17th century and was by accounts more fascinated by mathematics itself than an audience.



This quote was found in the margin of a copy of the 1670 edition of Diophantus' Arithmetica. Fermat never published the proof itself, and it baffled mathematicians for 300 years (imagine if you found an old document written by an authority you trust saying "I've discovered an infallible way to predict which stocks will rise. All you have to do is" with the rest of the paper having been torn off). As trolls go, it was fairly effective. People tried and tried and tried and there was, I imagine, no small amount of cursing in between attempts.

Andrew Wiles, a UK mathematician, finally solved it and published the proof in 1995. This proof, however, employed what could fairly be described as cutting-edge mathematics. There was no way Fermat could have arrived at the proof by that same route, because the tools to do so didn't exist in the 17th century.

So did Fermat find a simpler way to arrive at the same conclusion? Could he have imagined seeing something which later turned out to be correct? There's no way to prove conclusively. All I know is that it makes for a damn good story.

_________________
~Björn Paulsen

This theory, which has been totally discredited, is the result of a series of errors on the part of Professor Clyde Hickelbomper of the University of New South Wales.

Being from the Southern Hemisphere, Prof. Hickelbomper initially became somewhat confused as to which end is up, and mistranslated "flathead" as "flatfuss." This is turn somehow became transformed into "flatfish," or, in some translations, "flounder."


Robert Rothman

I've been vacillating between talking about academia in general and science in particular, so I guess I mean both. I suppose we've been using science as the most straightforward representative of all the intellectual disciplines. My complaint about intellectual dogma applies to other disciplines besides science, but scientific theories come to mind most readily (though I can think of a few issues in theology as well -- I don't even know enough about the formal discipline of philosophy to know what the issues are).


Ah... I was simply trying to say that the division should be between honest scientists who sincerely investigate and carefully frame their theories by no other criteria than what they think is objectively true and those people who want to get famous or start a flame war or defend preconceived notions, etc. I don't know whether or not the scientific method is perfect when it comes to science, but I'm sure that it's not adequate for everything.


From everything I've heard of Charles Darwin, he sounds like a truly honest scholar, not deserving of the demonizing that some dissenters have tainted him with, and I've never heard of anyone rejecting the fundamental idea of natural selection, even if some prefer to use different semantics. However, the theories that his work helped to start don't deserve a special unquestionable status, either. I've read books by "fringe" scientists who are ready and eager to present specific evidence against the notion that any given complex organ really could not have been formed by those numerous, successive, slight modifications.


Yeah, you called me on that one... I was just repeating what everyone says in an argument now and then about people once believing the earth was flat. Maybe that's a little ironic.

Evolution theory is quite diverse at this point, and there's thriving scientific theories. I think it's accurate to say that very, very few scientists doubt evolution, but some other methods besides small modifications are well discussed. One theory is that relatively small changes in the genome result in fairly large modifications in the phenotype. (And this is an argument made by Gould, who's not really a "fringe" scientist.) There are a number of other complications; evolutionary research is alive and well, and there are lots of varying arguments.

So without knowing specifically what you're thinking of, things have gotten quite a bit more complex since Darwin's death. But if you're referring to, say, young earth theory, you'll find a vanishing small amount of scientific support because objective evidence just really, really does not point that way. (But you will find plenty of evolutionary theorists willing to discuss that evidence, and why they think the evidence is inadequate to support, and contradictory to, young earth theory.)

Not that I am one, but Intelligent Design is distinct from Creationism, and there are many non-religious (or at least non-Christian) IDers.

They do have one thing going for them... the metabolic cycle sure is complex! Now whether it's irreducibly complex is a hard question to answer...

What? There's really such a theory? OMG, lol! I only made that up as a joke and honestly never heard about anyone suggesting something like this for real

If you re-read Robert's post, I think you'll find that he continued the joke.

That's a nice thing about this forum, that posts like yours and Robert's can co-exist with posts like Victor's in a thread like this one. (I particularly like to thank Victor and others involved in that topic for the tone and content of it.)

_________________
"The thing I like about deadlines is the wonderful whooshing noise they make as they go past."
- Douglas Adams