The fundamental flaw of the scientific method

[Phi for All]

I will however point out that published scientific articles can be quite long and mind numbingly technical and sometimes boring. If someone can't hold their attention on a 2 or 3 thousand word Internet posting, I find it difficult to comprehend that they have any place discussing big ideas. No offense really, but that's how I call it.

Well, the two aren't really the same, are they? If I'm reading a scientific article, I'm not really expecting to have any input at all, unlike a science discussion forum.

 

And btw, I've only seen ideas presented and then responded to in the way that this thread was immediately responded to, i.e. "FAIL"...I've never heard of an idea posted on the Internet making it further than this (unless you can cite a progression in a field of science that uses an Internet discussion in its appendix, I'm unaware of any). This tells me that 99.9% of discussions are met with the same sort of immediate reply and only proceed when the poster has the desire to "complain" about it

I personally don't think discussions proceed much when devolving into complaints about criticism. The vast majority of ideas don't work, and it doesn't help anyone to linger longer on those that start out flawed. If the person with the idea can take the criticism on board and work with it to hone future presentations, everyone benefits. And there's always the danger of lending tacit support when you don't point out flaws and someone else takes flawed information as supported theory.

[WHR]

There several issues with that. First of all, it is not a matter of degree per se, but in order to develop ideas above a certain level some kind of knowledge of the subject is kind of necessary. If I wanted to build a wardrobe I would have at least to invest time to figure out how to do it, what material to use etc. Even then it would be a lousy job. It would be quite childish of me to just nails some stuff randomly together and expect to get praise (especially from carpenters who actually spent time to learn the craft).

Science has progressed to a point where in most areas random ideas without in-depth study of the current knowledge, is unlikely to yield novel insights. Not impossible, but highly improbable.

To develop expertise takes time and the willingness to learn. Pretending, especially in science, will not do anyone anything good.

I have no issues (and actually enjoy) talking to non-scientists about science. And I do not think anyone should shut their mouth if they do not understand something (quite the opposite, actually). But if someones idea is not planted on a very solid foundation, one has to expect to learn, why it is wrong (or otherwise lacking). And then, one should learn from there.

This actually supports my point rather than refutes it. First, on an Internet forum, it is impossible to know the other party's level of training or knowledge. Even if it be self taught. Unless the other person discloses that information openly (and isn't lying)...therefore, it is conceivable that every last member of this message board is no more than a freshman year biology major and prematurely calling themselves a scientist. (without allowing a contradiction, I do not believe that a PhD is required to have a brilliant idea). How do I know your own level of training? Even if you tell me your level of training, how do I know that it isn't a lie? To be frank, because of the anonymous nature of the Internet, it is impossible to accept anyone's claims at face value. That does not mean that their thoughts can't be merited. That doesn't mean that a discussion with said person is pointless. It just means that taking their judgements seriously is a matter of personal discretion. This is why I don't "need" a thick skin and why I'm not debating from an emotional stance. I'm debating for the sake of debate. And I am fully aware that most people know I'm right, that the system is flawed and could be better. That doesn't mean it isn't great. But greatness should always strive to identify its weaknesses and be better. As I've pointed out, science in a capitalist economy is biased and flawed from the start because money and prestige are greater motivators than thirst for knowledge. This does not besmirch capitalism. It points out the evils of the marriage that exists. But the debate will continue on this thread because Devil's advocate must be played. When something has succeeded it can't be tampered with. Even if greater success might come from the tampering.

One last point about science and exonomics/politics. If you look at the space race of the cold war, a perfect example can be found. The USSR actually had a superior space program from the start. Scientists within their system MAY have received small accolades and even smaller compensation...but the pride of their work (and probably fear of failure) motivated them more. OTOH, NASA depended on contracts with aerospace companies and budget minded legislation to kick itself off. It took a challenge from Kennedy that struck at the pride, spirit, and ethic of the public to spark the motivation for Apollo. At this point, economics became less of an issue, the spirit of accomplishment became the driving force. Once the race was over, economics kicked back in, and the space program pretty much stagnated into low orbit science fair experiments. I'm being a bit harsh but I'm very critical of the failure to move our sights forward and keep them there. The USSR did no better, other than recognizing the more useful concept of building a permanent space station early on and giving cosmonauts prolonged exposure to low gravity orbits. Science that will further the actual exploration of space by manned missions much more than the shuttle program really did.

 

Well, the two aren't really the same, are they? If I'm reading a scientific article, I'm not really expecting to have any input at all, unlike a science discussion forum.

 

 

I personally don't think discussions proceed much when devolving into complaints about criticism. The vast majority of ideas don't work, and it doesn't help anyone to linger longer on those that start out flawed. If the person with the idea can take the criticism on board and work with it to hone future presentations, everyone benefits. And there's always the danger of lending tacit support when you don't point out flaws and someone else takes flawed information as supported theory.

Again, I haven't complained about criticism at all. In fact, I've really yet to see a valid rebuttle to MY Criticisms. In fact, one could even argue that I've made a criticism in the very nature of the topic of my thread, and that every response to it has been a complaint, or knee jerk defense of an adhered to doctrine, etc... If you have a logical mind, you might grasp that!!

[IceFall]

A very interesting topic.

Sorry if my response is not a direct response to previous comments but there were too many walls of text and some of it were off-topic. (;

 

It is true that the scientific method, just like WHR said, has a flaw, but I would not call it "fundamental" but rather a pragmatic flaw.

As you may know the scientific method is a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning (the so called hypothesis + experimentation procedure). However, this means that the scientific method has some limitations to it. First, the scientific method is constrained by our technology. A caveman, no matter how incredibly intelligent he is, wouldn't be able to discover a quark since he doesn't have the technology to do it. Second, the scientific method is based upon statistical error and trial, and thus it can never prove something to be true. Heck, it can give us a very close answer but it is not necessarily the complete truth yet.

 

To illustrate this I will use the example of Galilean vs Relativistic transformations.

Galilean transformations is the common method to add velocities that we still use today for non-relativistic velocities. We now know that Galileo did not see the complete truth since we now know about Special relativity and the Lorenz factor. The reason Galileo would have never come up with this relativity is because he ever imagined there was a speed limit, nor had he a need to look for it. There was no need since relativistic speeds can't be seen on the Earth and thus his calculation were perfectly correct for that time.

 

Here is the flaw. Galilean transformations were considered to be truth since no one could defy his calculations since there was no experimental evidence to disprove him at the time. However, as we got deeper knowledge of light and relativity, we were able to disprove him. The scientific method bases its knowledge on "Working Models" and not necessarily truths. This means that scientific method can give us theories but not truths. It can only be disproved and never used to prove.

 

However, this flaw is not necessarily bad since we can use it to disprove previous theories and make them more complete just like the example.

[WHR]

I agree that the flaw can be a pragmatic one as it applies to modern applications. We have yet to reach the point where the limitations of truth finding are such that near truths or "as true as we can practically rationalize" are not acceptable. The reality is, any art, or doctrine, that teaches things ought to have a core principle that what is being taught is, in fact, TRUTH. Truth is not bendable. It isn't changeable (unless it is an evolving aspect of nature, such as social truths...truths that can change with historical context). Truth in the sense of "where did life begin" are not ambiguous. Truth in the sense of "how was the universe created" are not ambiguous. They are not "almost answered". They are not answered by half explanations. They are not answered by explanations that can be revised. If they need revision, or have that potential, then they haven't been answered. In fact, they are no different than religious dogmas of this is the case. An example. It is a fundamental truth that has been proven with 100% certainty that electricity and magnetism are related. That is pure science. We don't know with certainty all the mechanisms involved. But the general statement that "electricity and magnetism are related" is pretty much in the realm of physical law. Today, physicists are telling us that there is a material called dark matter in the universe, and an energy called dark energy. This is based on an imbalance in a math problem, an equation that can't be worked out without making something up to help. I read textbooks explaining it in this context..."It turns out that the universe is filled with about 75% dark energy". ...IT TURNS OUT. This is an absolutist kind of language. It denotes certainty. Things only "turn out" one way or another when they have been resolved and defined. We are LOST for a viable explanation, therefore nothing has yet "turned out" in any way shape or form. Another wall of text. It takes words to express thoughts. Thanks for the reply.

 

A good example. I'm watching a BBC program on YouTube discussing the inferences we make about extrasolar planets based on a star's wobble, or periodic dimming. While that dimming observation is a pretty convincing technique...the documentary used the term "proof". Certainly wobble is nothing more than an inference. Inference does not equal proof. Yet we declare it as proven knowledge. It is disappointing. I just added to my wall of text. My apologies.

[tar]

WHR,

 

In fact I did write Steven Hawkins once, with a common sense idea of mine. He had the courtesy to write me back, and explain where I had gone wrong.

 

If there are elements in your common sense idea, that do not fit with what is already known, why would someone that knows this, be interested in pursuing it?

 

For instance, in reading your example of a wonderful new common sense idea, that merits the attention of masters I saw the same flaw in the early going, that Hawkins pointed out to me. (although it was many years ago, and these are not his words, here is the jist) The Big Bang did not occur "somewhere else", in the center of the universe, as if we can point to the spot it occured, as "in that direction". It happened everywhere in the universe, and we (meaning Earth, or Solar System or Galaxy) were, and still are at that location.

 

I am sure I am mangling the description, but the "idea" I am trying to express, in opposition to your thesis, is that the scientific community is not closed to new ideas, but does, very validly, instruct "newcomers" as to the actual, real, stuff that is already known to be the case. If the new idea does not fit with what is already known, if what is known needs to be discarded, with no solid workable framework to take its place, if it does not make someone think, "well yes, that would explain everything already explained, AND open new avenues, then it probably, the idea that is, has already known flaws, and does not merit or require anybodies serious effort. If it had merit, it WOULD be persued, or has already been pursued.

 

Not that new ways of looking at things do not occur all the time. But that usually the goods ideas will spread automatically and be improved upon by the million minds you describe, and the bad ideas will be discarded, or corrected because of their initial flaws, that is, because they don't work. They don't match what actually is the case. Whatever portions of them might be workable and valuable will be pursued, because they are valuable and workable.

 

I feel I can "talk down" to you, in this fashion, because I am often thinkng I have an idea that other people just are not understanding or paying any attention to, and if they only would, they could make some progress in understanding things.

We both perhaps are suffering from a lack of confidence in the judgement of others. That they are somehow incapable of judging the merits of an idea, based on their own common sense, their own knowledge, their own logic, and their own understanding, without our guidance.

 

Evidence would suggest that I not instruct you on anything concerning chemistry.

 

You can teach me in that field, and Hawkins can instruct me in cosmology and physics. I am not likely to come up with anything brilliant that would cause either of you to hit your forehead with the heel of your hand and say "THATS IT!, I've been so stupid".

 

Yes, I know, I am pretty full of myself. I apologize. But I am also rather certain that there are many others around, that can and should put me in my place, and usually do. I view this as a good and proper thing, and rather count on others being more capable than I in most every way.

 

And since it is important to your thesis that other minds, that many minds, are better than a few, you must submit to the possibility, that your ideas will be or have been, already properly judged.

Therefore Scientific Method already includes the freshness and free thinking and common sense your thesis proposes as the next required step. That is, your thesis is incorrect. We are not bounded by Scientific Method, and require common sense to take the next step. The opposite is true. We have used common sense already, and its built into the scientific method, and it remains the best way we have of determining whether our ideas, as sensible as they may seem, work or not in describing what actually is the case.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Hey, I am even stupider than I thought. I apologize again, I forgot that Hawkins doesn't do forehead slappling. Forget that image.

 

one more apology, I was responding to #20, missed a whole page.

Edited August 6, 2012 by tar

[juanrga]

The scientific method is awesome!! I mean it really rocks. It has advanced human knowledge in the past 200 years more than the previous 20,000. However, it has a fundamental flaw that prevents it from overcoming it's own limitations.

The fundamental flaw is that it is a doctrine that says truth can only be obtained by following its rigid rules. That is absoluty 100% certainly false. A discovery that advances human knowledge and understanding of nature can be made without the tool of science.

 

Scientific methods do not say what you believe. Scientific methods are used to obtain scientific knowledge. There are other kind of knowledge which are acquired by other methods. The point here is that those non-scientific knowledges are not guaranteed to work regarding the empirical real world and, in fact, they are often corrected/eliminated by scientific knowledge.

[WHR]

Tar, thank you for that very well thought out reply. But I've never made a claim that the big bang happened somewhere else. I would assume an event that had an outward expanse from a point of absolute compactness... Is the idea not that the entire universe, all the subatomic particles, had the space between them completely "sucked out" (so to speak) so actually space itself exists nowhere, not even a crevice between a quark or a neutrino...one big lump of silly puddy ready to be stretched out and made into whatever happens to pop out. Therefore we would have it that when the universe grew in size (let's say the moment that It was 1000 fold bigger than the original singularity) then the "area" that the singularity originally occupied would be somewhere within the new larger area. It would never be outside of that area. Where am I going astray? And can you point to where I claimed the singularity ever fell outside of the universe (the physical universe)...If you are referring to a topic I started on spacetime, the 2D modeling of it, then your assessment would be incorrect. I never said that the singularity was someWHERE outside of the universe. I said it was "someWHEN". Outside of our present universe. I don't think that is a statement that has been questioned. The problem is that I am trying to think of the universe as not just the physical, but also the chronological, and that they are one in the same (spacetime).

 

This took the original topic off course, I was replying to Tar's comment. Btw again thank you for conversing with me politely!!!

Edited August 6, 2012 by WHR

[Arete]

We have yet to reach the point where the limitations of truth finding are such that near truths or "as true as we can practically rationalize" are not acceptable.

 

Actually, this is incorrect. All scientific theories are theories in the respect that they entertain the possibility, no matter how well supported they are, that they might turn out to be incorrect. Almost all scientific data is presented in terms of probability - that is with a probability of the data supporting the hypothesis. At least in my field, this is often given as the probability of data sampled at random showing the same correlations as the observed data. That means that even if the empirical data fit a curve perfectly, there is always the consideration that the observed correlation is an artifact and not actually real. As such, science as whole isn't really about providing the "true" answer in as much as it is about providing the "least incorrect" answer. There might only be a 0.0001 chance that random data would give us the same result as our observed data, but we still acknowledge that possibility.

 

As for citizen science and academia - Emergent scientific fields generally start off with broad hypotheses that don't really have a "box". As general hypotheses are verified or rejected, "the box" of parameter space in which the answer lies slowly becomes apparent. Further hypothesis testing and experimentation leads to a shrinking of the dimensions of the "box" on the parameter space in which the answer is most likely to be.

 

Often when the well meaning layperson presents an 'out of the box" hypothesis, they are presenting a hypothetical which lies in a region of parameter space which as been rejected by previous investigation - often due to the natural lack of knowledge that comes from not having spent a full time career investigating the problem at hand. It's nothing to be ashamed of, it happens to me all the time, only I consider it flattering to have independently come up with concepts predecessors I would consider mentors and role models did too, but then proved to be false.

 

The trap that people not classically trained in the sciences sometimes fall into is turning a hypothesis into a pet hypothesis. They then take the robust criticism and evaluation of a hypothesis which part of the normal evaluation of science as a personal affront and subsequent rejection of those hypotheses found to be wanting as personal rejection and offense from the establishment. I'd hate for you to fall into that trap.

 

Professional scientists will often tell each other an idea is "flawed" or a concept "fails" - e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18973487 It's best not to take it personally as it's almost never intended that way.

[tar]

Tar, thank you for that very well thought out reply. But I've never made a claim that the big bang happened somewhere else. I would assume an event that had an outward expanse from a point of absolute compactness... Is the idea not that the entire universe, all the subatomic particles, had the space between them completely "sucked out" (so to speak) so actually space itself exists nowhere, not even a crevice between a quark or a neutrino...one big lump of silly puddy ready to be stretched out and made into whatever happens to pop out. Therefore we would have it that when the universe grew in size (let's say the moment that It was 1000 fold bigger than the original singularity) then the "area" that the singularity originally occupied would be somewhere within the new larger area. It would never be outside of that area. Where am I going astray? And can you point to where I claimed the singularity ever fell outside of the universe (the physical universe)...If you are referring to a topic I started on spacetime, the 2D modeling of it, then your assessment would be incorrect. I never said that the singularity was someWHERE outside of the universe. I said it was "someWHEN". Outside of our present universe. I don't think that is a statement that has been questioned. The problem is that I am trying to think of the universe as not just the physical, but also the chronological, and that they are one in the same (spacetime).

 

This took the original topic off course, I was replying to Tar's comment. Btw again thank you for conversing with me politely!!!

 

 

WHR,

 

This is a sentence from the proposal you expanded upon to form your example of laymen ideas, devoid of entrapment in the Scientific Method, that could constitute an example of the wonderful new thinking required, for us to take the next step in human understanding of the universe.

 

He pondered if the opposite of an intdention caused by massive bodies might exist at the center of the universe, at the location in spacetime where the big bang supposedly happened.

 

If a flaw in the orignal idea that you expounded upon, can be so readily spotted and pointed out, by a laymen like me, then I would guess that someone with some experience in the field would find your proposal rather a non-starter. That is, they probably already know why the idea is doomed to "not work".

 

Regards, TAR2

 

And not so much of an off topic point as you think. It is crucial to your argument that your idea is of value to all of us, and we can only reap that value by looking deeply into uninformed laymen type intuitions, without having to conform to the simple, tried and true framework of the Scientific Method.

 

I say, your OP thesis is incorrect.

AND your "new" idea is worthless.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited August 6, 2012 by tar

[WHR]

I thought that your assertion Tar was that in his thesis that the big bag occurred outside of the universe. Clearly if the universe has been expanding like a loaf of raisin bread, as scientists say, then the initial mass of "dough" would have necessarily been located within the larger body that the universe has stretched to become???

 

I also will tell a cute story that counters the appeal to authority argument about more trained peeps knowing more than the unwashed masses. My ex wife used to tell a funny story about her mom and dad, who were both experimental aircraft pilots since she was young. One day they were taxiing the runway and she made an observation and said "daddy". He said not now Honey we are taking off. She said "mommy". Her mother told her to hush, she was talkin to the control tower. She implored "mommy daddy!!!" and the both turned around and screamed "hush not now!!!"...she started to cry and said "but mommy and daddy the airplane is on fire". That is a true story that I didn't make up. She was 4 years old and they were in their 30s (pilots and parents...authorities on both counts). Problem is, it took a lot of effort to get their attention. Something to think about.

 

Btw tar, I take back my appreciation for the politeness from your early reply.

 

I would never tell someone their idea was worthless. Even if i deemed that it was, I'd never be so bold as to call anyone else's thought was ******worthless******

 

That should not be in the language of science.

 

I am going to take offense to this language, because it is offensive. It shuts me out of dialogue. It tells me I can't be in the big boy club or bring my toys to the sandbox. It's no wonder that so many in the public are becoming distrustful of science...much as they distrusted the church during the Inquisition or on the cusp of Galilieo and Copernicus. This only supports my initial assertion. Not because an alternative idea is not agreed upon, but because it is met with such arrogance and hostility and single mindedness.

[ACG52]

WHR, everything you've written shows that you don't even have a passing familiarity with the Big Bang theory or cosmology. You should try reading some popularizations.

 

BTW, I totally agree with Tar's assessment. There's no hostility, just honesty.

[StringJunky]

WHR

 

Tar is right, you are making quite some elementary mistakes about the state of current knowledge of the universe...he's not being disrespectful, he's just telling you how it is.

 

If you don't want to be picked up for elementary mistakes, make sure you read up on the basics first.

[WHR]

Ha. The age of the Internet.

 

I take back my idea that people using the Internet together can answer the burning questions. People are too arrogant when not in a room together. But we sure can play a mean game of Worlds of Warcraft.

 

My last post in this forum. Drones.

[StringJunky]

The "burning questions" don't get worked out by plucking thoughts out of thin air and airing them on the internet after an hour or two of "deep thought"...they are answered by dedicated and diligent individuals who spend years studying. The best most of us here can do is learn from those people and disseminate their efforts amongst those that want to know...we do not aspire to delusions.

 

I'd rather be a "drone" listening to people with a sound and consistent methodology than listen to an instant-scientist-with-a-Galilean Complex.

Edited August 7, 2012 by StringJunky

[tar]

WHR,

 

Perhaps I should have said "that dog don't hunt".

 

I used the word worthless, meaning devoid of value.

 

It was a comment on the proposal, not about you. You may well be an excellent chemist, father and patriot, and be worth a million dollars.

 

Regards, TAR2

[WHR]

The "burning questions" don't get worked out by plucking thoughts out of thin air and airing them on the internet after an hour or two of "deep thought"...they are answered by dedicated and diligent individuals who spend years studying. The best most of us here can do is learn from those people and disseminate their efforts amongst those that want to know...we do not aspire to delusions.

 

I'd rather be a "drone" listening to people with a sound and consistent methodology than listen to an instant-scientist-with-a-Galilean Complex.

So you are saying you are too stupid to figure it out and will listen to the masters...

 

I think that's what the illiterates said when the pope was reading the Latin bible and telling them what it said. Oops I broke a personal rule about making religious analogies but that one sure had bait on it.

[Ben Banana]

I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing is unfortunately like painting; for the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence. And the same may be said of speeches. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if you want to know anything and put a question to one of them, the speaker always gives one unvarying answer. And when they have been once written down they are tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand them, and know not to whom they should reply, to whom not: and, if they are maltreated or abused, they have no parent to protect them; and they cannot protect or defend themselves.

- Socrates

 

The essence of expression is an import asset, and we must store assets mechanically. Computational machines are the medium.

[WHR]

WHR,

 

Perhaps I should have said "that dog don't hunt".

 

I used the word worthless, meaning devoid of value.

 

It was a comment on the proposal, not about you. You may well be an excellent chemist, father and patriot, and be worth a million dollars.

 

Regards, TAR2

Point taken Tar, and thanks for the kind words!!! but if you have the same view as String Junky, then it would seem none of us have the aptitude to actually be the judge of an idea. We need to wait around for the guy with the "hi my name is Joe astrophysicist" name tag to pop in the discussion and set us all straight.

 

I'm sorry, I do not live my life following any person, organization, institution, dogma, religion, authority whatsoever by a leash. And one thing you would be incorrect about is also my patriotism. I reside in the US, but I do not have one ounce of faith in the state of our culture, our government, our economy, or our future. I can't say any better for any other country so I take solace in not living in abject poverty. And that, as a matter of fact, well Actually personal opinion, is the only true reason people feel anything other than remorse today for a country that has lost its way.

[ACG52]

I'm sorry, I do not live my life following any person, organization, institution, dogma, religion, authority whatsoever by a leash.

 

Does that include education and knowledge?

Edited August 7, 2012 by ACG52

[WHR]

You know everything AGC52. Thanks. It must be cool to have achieved omnipotence. Please don't hurt me.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

All of you,

Quit with the insults and general hostility and get back on topic.

[swansont]

I am going to take offense to this language, because it is offensive. It shuts me out of dialogue. It tells me I can't be in the big boy club or bring my toys to the sandbox. It's no wonder that so many in the public are becoming distrustful of science...much as they distrusted the church during the Inquisition or on the cusp of Galilieo and Copernicus. This only supports my initial assertion. Not because an alternative idea is not agreed upon, but because it is met with such arrogance and hostility and single mindedness.

 

Science is not a democracy, it is a meritocracy. All ideas are not treated equally, because all ideas are not equal. Most, in fact, are rubbish. Which means they have to be scrutinized and tested. The ones that don't stand up to this get tossed. This isn't an "everybody wins" faux-self-esteem-building exercise.

[WHR]

Science is not a democracy, it is a meritocracy. All ideas are not treated equally, because all ideas are not equal. Most, in fact, are rubbish. Which means they have to be scrutinized and tested. The ones that don't stand up to this get tossed. This isn't an "everybody wins" faux-self-esteem-building exercise.

you know that replying to a thread that's premise is that the scientific method is flawed with such a statement isn't how it is likely to endear someone.

 

So when I toss out the whole status quo ideas about cosmology as rubbish with no merit, what am I exercising? Oh I can already predict someone's answer..."ignorance"...ding ding we have an answer.

 

Phooey. I'm exercising the brain that I was entrusted with.

 

You know, ever since the beginning of mankind, the entire human species, every individual, has looked up in amazement at the splendor of the night sky. Our earliest ancestors would draw and carve depictions on caves of what they saw and their feeble explanations (no more feeble than ours but feeble nonetheless)...they did not have a meritocracy of blue ribbon wearing judges vandalizing the cave art and "correcting it" with the status quo. That came much later with Christianity (which wasn't a democracy but rather a meritocracy based on if it wasn't in the bible it didn't have merit).

 

So ultimately, the meritocracy is where human weakness takes over. Not hunt for truth but hunt for merit based on contemporary wisdom. That's it!!!! Makes it no different than the inquisition. If you are blind to that reality I feel for you.

 

Anyway I would have prefered the caveman days before it was decided that something had to seek an approval system before one could speak it. And before purveyors of wisdom decided that they had a monopoly on man's greatest aspiration.

[Arete]

Science is not a democracy, it is a meritocracy. All ideas are not treated equally, because all ideas are not equal. Most, in fact, are rubbish. Which means they have to be scrutinized and tested. The ones that don't stand up to this get tossed. This isn't an "everybody wins" faux-self-esteem-building exercise.

 

To add to SwansonT's post - this is verbatim from the abstract of the Evolution paper I posted a link to previously:

 

Why does a method that fails continue to be used?

What is difficult to understand is the continued use of a method that not only fails, but also has never been shown to work--nested clade analysis is applied widely even though the conditions under which the method will provide reliable results have not yet been demonstrated....In this case, the appeal of what nested-clade analysis claims to do--not what the method actually achieves--appears to explain its paradoxical status as a favorite method that fails.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18973487

 

Scientists use words like "fails" and "flawed" to describe the hypotheses and methods of others all the time.

[WHR]

To add to SwansonT's post - this is verbatim from the abstract of the Evolution paper I posted a link to previously:

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18973487

 

Scientists use words like "fails" and "flawed" to describe the hypotheses and methods of others all the time.

I've seen religious writings that use such language. I'm becoming ever more convinced of dogmatic thinking.