Pseudo Science and Disagreeing Scientists

[pljames]

I love science and all it encompasses. But I have noticed there are some that disagree with the status quo like Einsteins theory the big bang and such. Can anyone tell me what percentage of the science community is together and what parts are not? The ones that disagree with the status quo state that the ones in the know are spouting dogma according to there findings. Then the disputers arise and tell there side. Why is the science community divided into so many camps? Would not this division cause the non scientist and believers to mistrust science and the scientists that make these discoveries?

PLJAMES

[swansont]

First of all, there are few viewpoints so outlandish that you can't find some credentialed scientist to endorse it. Some of these are cases where they just aren't being objective - they let ideology or some personal agenda drive the science that they do. Some make gross mistakes and their ego won't let them recognize or admit it. Scientists are human, after all.

 

Some disagreements happen because the science involved is very complex, and in order to simplify it to the point where you can solve equations, you have to make assumptions, and there are disagreements over the validity of the approximations that result (e.g. a term is assumed to be negligible, but isn't in some applications of the equation). There are also issues of data interpretation and incomplete data, and of methodology of doing experiments, e.g. not eliminating all outside influences on your experiment, introducing systematic errors, but not recognizing this. It takes a while for enough of the pieces to fall into place to come to a consensus, and the camps may be split for a while as this all shakes out. Most of the disagreements of this type are on the cutting edge of science, not the well-established part (by definition, really)

 

I'd guess that issues of the first type are the ones that are argued on the internet, and are things like creationism, antigravity, perpetual motion and anti- special relativity. Issues of the second type are argued more in journals, and boiled down (often to the point that they are wrong) in the popular press, and then argued on the internet, like big bang cosmology and general relativity.

[Evangelante]

I'd like to think of it this way.

 

Prove it, otherwise I'll think about it however the heck I want. Along with however crazy, hypothetical, and half-baked it might be.

 

Some of the most unreasonable people have come up with great things.

 

About the best way to get someone on your side is either proof or persuasion.

[DQW]

I'd like to think of it this way.

 

Prove it' date=' otherwise I'll think about it however the heck I want. Along with however crazy, hypothetical, and half-baked it might be.[/quote']You can not prove a scientific theory. You can only disprove one. So feel free to think about things however the heck you want.

 

Some of the most unreasonable people have come up with great things.

If by 'unreasonable', you are refering to a characteristic that prevents the use of reason, I'd like to see some examples of this.

 

About the best way to get someone on your side is either proof or persuasion.

What other ways exist ?

[swansont]

About the best way to get someone on your side is either proof or persuasion.

 

The proof (i.e. evidence) way is scientific. Persuasion, absent evidence, is not.

[Ophiolite]

About the best way to get someone on your side is either proof or persuasion.

What other ways exist ?

Indoctrination: it is not the same as persuasion.

[Ophiolite]

Why is the science community divided into so many camps?

We know only a tiny fraction of what there is to know. Consequently our ignorance exceeds our knowledge. Disagreements revolve around the material that is in the process of becoming known. Rather than being a weakness, such disagreement is the greatest strength of science.