Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?

[studiot]

And we often find Derisive-ness too along with it.

 

Don't give up mate - it's a grand life if you don't weaken.

[Anilkumar]

Don't give up mate - it's a grand life if you don't weaken.

 

Thank you for corroborating, studiot.

 

 

[stevenchiverton]

scientists are like computers they are only as good as what you teach them from the very first day, so they stick to what there taught so if a new idea or something comes up that can contradict everything they know about it based on there old knowledge and whats passed down in there years of lerning from others who may not know themselfs, then it would be hard for them to except it because they dont know themselfs . like how many times has the law of phisics been brocken yes the rubish stuff they might of thought would be solid only to see it broken . even better how many admit it they got it wrong , or thought it was right when it wasent . if a new idea come up and they are reluctant to except it . then im looking forwards to seeing if they can except civilians who dont think like them take the nobel the nobel prize for a change , not all brilliant ideas were discoverd by scientists.

[Ophiolite]

Steven, are you aware that practicing scientists in their training are required to come up with new ideas, not simply indulge in rote learning? Are you aware that an academic reasearch scientist's career depends upon him generating and demonstraing new ideas? Are you aware that a scientist in industry retains her job only on the basis that she produces new ideas for her employer?

 

In short, your understanding of how science and scientists work is faulty.

 

To Anilkumar:

 

I have been engaged with several science forums for many years. In that time I have witnessed hundreds of proposed 'theories' which were either self evidently wrong, or fairly rapidly were shown to be so. There is a character to the way such ideas are presented that raises doubts at the outset. Repeated exposure to the association of that character and the poor quality of the 'theories' leads one to the reasonable position that most (almost all) 'theories' proposed on science forums are bollocks. Would you agree with this assessment?

[Anilkumar]

To Anilkumar:

 

I have been engaged with several science forums for many years. In that time I have witnessed hundreds of proposed 'theories' which were either self evidently wrong, or fairly rapidly were shown to be so. There is a character to the way such ideas are presented that raises doubts at the outset. Repeated exposure to the association of that character and the poor quality of the 'theories' leads one to the reasonable position that most (almost all) 'theories' proposed on science forums are bollocks. Would you agree with this assessment?

 

Ophiolite,

 

However,

 

Most/Almost all ≠ All.

 

Thank you.

 

 

[swansont]

Ophiolite,

 

However,

 

Most/Almost all ≠ All.

 

Thank you.

The problem here is that of you want to have your views become accepted, you have to go through the same steps as every other view that is accepted. Until you've done that, your thesis does not fall under the category of "truth", regardless of how fervently you believe it. Scientists are big fans of the process.

[Ophiolite]

Ophiolite,

 

However,

 

Most/Almost all ≠ All.

 

Thank you.

Would you agree that the correct way to distinguish between the ideas that are 'true' and those that are 'false' is to require evidence in support of the proposed idea that is superior in some way to the evidence for the currently held idea?

 

Since you seem to be a reasonable person I shall anticipate that you will reply 'yes to my question. Now, in the world of science how is a new proposal greeted? I work in engineering, not science. I'll tell you how new ideas are greeted here: with derision, condemnation and demands for secure evidence that they will generate greater profits. If the ideas are any good they survive that process. Now do you think in science we should somehow treat an idea and its proposer with kid gloves? We should be gentle and understanding and compassionate? Why? How does that help the idea? How does that help the proposer? How does that help science? How does that help humanity?

 

I do a fool no favours by granting them the title genius.

[Anilkumar]

The problem here is that of you want to have your views become accepted,

 

 

 

When a new theory is proposed, Science deals with it only in either of the two ways. Either Reject it by making the flaws in it scientifically obvious, or if that cannot be done, then the only other option that remains would be to Accept it. Any & all other acts of criticism do not belong to Science. Moreover, there is no such thing as 'Acceptance' in Science. A theory is Acceptable until it becomes inconsistent. Then, when a theory becomes inconsistent, it is modified. However, if Science cannot modify it consistently, it is rejected.

 

Now for example; I have shown that GR is inconsistent in its attempt to show that Gravity is space-time curvature. Then, I have depicted a modified GR as; the tool to measure the observational discrepancies crept in due to the illusory Relativistic effects and said it is not a theory of Gravity. Moreover, I have said that Gravity is nothing but the Influence of the Affinity of Matter towards Matter. What I have said is consistent with observations. My views are Logical and Falsifiable. Moreover, it makes GR, again consistent. What more is required for the Acceptance of a view? In fact, what I am asking for is not Acceptance. I will discuss it later.

 

When one's views are undeniable, then obviously they logically attain the status for Acceptance. Whether one is individually willing to accept it or not, is different.

 

If one does not want to accept a new idea that is scientifically well supported, one has to deny it scientifically. Any other act like Reluctance, derision, disregard, dealings [Journals etc], routes [Referees etc] etc are unscientific acts.

 

Don't we have responsibility towards Truth?

 

When we come across a Truth, should we promote it or suppress it?

 

Why should Truth be the victim of dogmatic events or channels, why can't it travel through the pure channels of Science and reach everyone? Why can't it travel on the back of the promoters of Truth? Why does it become a victim of the Reluctant, Derisive, and Believers in dogmas?

 

 

you have to go through the same steps as every other view that is accepted. Until you've done that, your thesis does not fall under the category of "truth", regardless of how fervently you believe it.

 

 

 

 

When a new view is presented in the scientific world, the scientific dealings that it should face is pure scientific scrutiny. Then if it answers the objections raised, gives logical proof, gives falsifiable methods, gives evidence; it has to be accepted. However, what happens is; one section of the scientific world deals it with Derision and another section of the scientific world deals it with Reluctance and another section of the scientific world asks for dogmatic qualifications and another section of the scientific world checks whether it has come through traditional/dogmatic channels and another section of the scientific world waits for others to accept and another section of the scientific world says those who are doing it for a century can't be wrong etc and a very small section of the truly scientific world deals with it scientifically and does pure scientific scrutiny. It is a pity that, a scientific thought has to go through all these unscientific processes. Are we having a pure scrutiny in the scientific world?

 

Why can't a group of proficient few, just scrutinize a new idea and decide whether it is right or wrong through scientific discussions with the proposer and then if it is wrong reject it giving scientific reasons and if found promising recommend it for wider scrutiny. Then if wider scrutiny finds it correct, it is accepted or else is rejected. Why can't we do Science in this way? That is what I am asking for. Why all this Reluctance, derision, disregard, dealings, routes and other dogma?

 

 

Scientists are big fans of the process.

 

 

 

I am a fan too of any process that strives to test and promote Truth. However, I hate any process that strives to suppress Truth; and Reluctance, Derision, Dogmas etc are parts of such a process. Reluctance, Derision, Dogmas etc are not parts of the process of the scientific scrutiny. They are spurts of human weaknesses. And I hate them from the bottom of my heart. They are detrimental to Science, they are detrimental to Humanity.

 

Swansont,

 

What I expect is; when someone presents an idea for the scrutiny by the scientific world. The scientific world should peruse it thoroughly with interest. Then scrutinize it with Just disposition. And if any Truth is suspected to be contained in the new idea, promote it with Gallant disposition for further & larger scrutiny. This is what is 'doing Science' and those who do this are the True Scientists. Rest everything, is not Science. And those who do the rest [Reluctance, derision, checking for dogma etc] are not being scientific. For a person to become scientist, one should be Just & Gallant first, among other things like possessing the scientific spirit and sticking to the scientific method. These are the basic qualifications. Then only can she find Truth & Uphold it. We can't expect from someone who is Unjust, Fearsome, Selfish to Uphold Truth or seek for it. All one can expect from them is Reluctance, Derision, Demanding for dogmas etc.

 

 

. . . you have to go through the same steps as every other view that is accepted . . .

 

 

 

I exactly don't know what are those steps that you are mentioning. But I am ready to answer any inquiring questions to the best of my ability regarding the idea I put forth. Moreover, I have given adequate methodical scientific proof. But the last thing I would do is, go through dogmatic dealings. I hate the dogmatic realm of the world sincerely. It's crap. In addition, I will never take the Truth I found to each and every door step seeking its acceptance. What I would do is, make it known to my nearest people with whom I have easy access. I strongly consider that it is the responsibility of every responsible human being to make aware, their fellow beings, of the Truth they come across. And my responsibility ends there. I expect the world to seek Truth and spread Awareness. When I make a Truth known to me, known to others, I do it because I expect that they would make the Truth known to them, known to me. And this is how I think the world will make itself Aware.

 

And this is why responsible people are running this fantastic forum. I expect my fellow beings to find fault with what I am saying and correct me. If they don't find fault and know it is a Truth, I expect it is their responsibility to give it to others. If they don't want to give, it is not my responsibility. My responsibility ends there. My responsibility is limited to give answers I know, to any inquiry on it. It is an Idea. Its legitimacy increases as when the evidence to support it increases. Until now, I have answered any questions raised on the idea given by me. I have given Logical proofs, Evidence, Falsifiable methods, Experiments. A discussion on a forum like this one, is sufficient to begin the process. The rest should follow on the back of society's motive force of seeking Truth. Whether the idea put forth by me is worth enough to be carried forward, is to be decided by the part of the Society or part of the scientific world amidst whom I have kept the idea. I have no say in that decision. I have done my part. It is their responsibility whether to carry it forward or drop it here. But I shall keep questioning the wrong, if it is put forth.

 

It is the responsibility of everyone to seek Truth. It is the responsibility of everyone to keep the Truth they find before everyone. It is the responsibility of everyone to scrutinize the Truth found by someone. It is the responsibility of everyone to correct it if wrong and further it if correct. It is NOT the responsibility of ANYone, to make it be accepted by ANYone. Everybody's responsibility ends there. Everybody should Seek, Scrutinize, Accept and Give Truth; no excuses. Doing that is Science. Whether one is willing to do, is different.

 

However, whenever the occasion rises, everybody is entitled to raise their voices and present what they think is True.

 

 

Would you agree that the correct way to distinguish between the ideas that are 'true' and those that are 'false' is to require evidence in support of the proposed idea that is superior in some way to the evidence for the currently held idea?

Since you seem to be a reasonable person I shall anticipate that you will reply 'yes to my question.

 

 

No sensible person would disagree with that.

 

I'll tell you how new ideas are greeted here: with derision, condemnation and demands for secure evidence that they will generate greater profits.

 

 

Demands for secure evidence - Scientific & just.

 

Derision --------- -- --------- Unscientific & unjust.*

 

Condemnation ------ --------- Unscientific & unjust.*

 

Gentle --------------- ----- - Scientific & just.*

 

Understanding-------------- - Scientific & just.*

 

Compassionate------------- - Scientific & just.*

 

 

. . . new ideas are greeted here: with derision, condemnation and demands . . .

 

. . . We should be gentle and understanding and compassionate? Why? . . .

 

I do a fool no favours by granting them the title genius.

 

 

 

How is derision & condemnation advantageous over being gentle, understanding and compassionate?

 

Science is; not for granting titles of genius.

 

Science is; quest for Truth.

 

People in Science are not sitting there to distribute genius titles to anybody. They are sitting there looking for Truth first.

 

 

Now do you think in science we should somehow treat an idea and its proposer with kid gloves?

 

 

 

 

I have asked for considerate perusal, of which there is a dearth. Considerate perusal helps the spreading of the scientific spirit and that eventually helps Science & humanity.

 

Whether it is a court of Law or the court of Science; the Judges, the Prosecutors and the Defense need to be JUST; for Truth to prevail. Unjust practices from any side will lead to derailment of the trial and eventually suppression of Truth and ultimately failure of the process i.e. the Law or the Science.

 

Science is the process of search for Truth. What role do Derision, Condemnation, Reluctance, Dogmas etc have to play in this process? Derision, Condemnation, Reluctance, Dogmas etc are not the parts of the process of scientific scrutiny. They are not scientific scrutiny. They are human weaknesses.

 

Gentleness, Understanding, Compassion, Courage, Gallantry etc are human strengths. They are necessary for nurturing Truth or Science.

 

Any new idea, has the possibility of bringing Truth. And it is this 'possibility' that is to be treated with kid gloves. Science should never & ever take up the act of treating the proposer. Science has no business with the proposer. It should only have business with the idea proposed.

 

*Derision, Condemnation, Reluctance, Dogmas etc are Unscientific & Unjust because they work toward suppressing Truth/Science.

Gentleness, Understanding, Compassion etc are Scientific & Just because they work towards promoting Truth/Science.

That which nurtures & promotes Truth/Science is scientific. That which suppresses & demotes Truth/Science is unscientific.

 

 

I do a fool no favours by granting them the title genius.

 

 

Science requires your favors elsewhere, not in granting titles of genius. Your favors are required in intent perusal of new ideas, their correction if wrong, their furthering if correct. And this favor you are doing it to none other than Truth, Science; not the fools, not the geniuses. And remember, the favor done to uphold Truth and Science, is the highest favor in this Universe. And that 'favor' is nothing but doing Science; upholding of truth. The rest everything is not doing Science.

 

"To show that which is Truth as Truth and standing for it, and to show what is Untruth as Untruth and discarding it; is the practice of doing Science". And one who practices that, is the Scientist and she is Gallant, Truthful, Just, and is Indifferent to the pleasures of the material world. Lack of information, or the right premises to think upon, does not make anyone a fool. The person who does not have the scientific spirit, the desire to uphold Truth, the desire to shed dogmas, the desire to come out of Untruth, is the real fool. The person who accumulates the scientific information and gets certified for that, follows the dogmas of the scientific world, makes a living in the science world; is not a Scientist, is just an ordinary human being. All the other beings that are not human also do the same thing that he does; 'making a living'. The immense desire to make a living; makes a person choose all else instead of Truth. And that is the reason why I hate the 'desire to make a living' so much. I have the greatest disrespect for those who live to 'make a living'. There is one holy purpose for life, and that is, 'Quest for Truth'. Rest everything is Crap. I respect those who are on the quest for Truth, no less than Gods. And Albert Einstein, whose theory I am criticizing, is one of them, because he aimed a major portion of his life, for the Quest of Truth.

 

Edited November 13, 2012 by Anilkumar

[Ringer]

 

Demands for secure evidence - Scientific & just.

 

Derision --------- -- --------- Unscientific & unjust.*

 

Condemnation ------ --------- Unscientific & unjust.*

 

Gentle --------------- ----- - Scientific & just.*

 

Understanding-------------- - Scientific & just.*

 

Compassionate------------- - Scientific & just.*

 

 

I'll fix this for you.

 

Demands for secure evidence - Scientific & just.

 

Evidence Scientific

 

Everything else mentioned Meaningless

[Anilkumar]

Demands for secure evidence - Scientific & just.

Derision --------- -- --------- Unscientific & unjust.*

Condemnation ------ --------- Unscientific & unjust.*

Gentle --------------- ----- - Scientific & just.*

Understanding-------------- - Scientific & just.*

Compassionate------------- - Scientific & just.*

I'll fix this for you.

 

Demands for secure evidence - Scientific & just.

 

Evidence Scientific

 

Everything else mentioned Meaningless

 

Everything else is not Meaningless.

Everything else is Human.

If everything else were meaningless, there would be no Science. It is Humans, who created Science.

Behind every deed, there is a doer.

Behind every Unjust deed, there is an Unjust doer.

Behind every Just deed, there is a Just doer.

Science, being a Quest for Truth, is a just deed, and just deeds are done by Just Humans.

Therefore, Science needs Humans who are Just.

Gentleness and being Understanding & compassionate are also the other qualities of Just Humans. Derision, Reluctance, condemnation etc, the negative qualities, pertain to Unjust Humans.

Unjust Humans do not do Science, because they do Injustice and Injustice does not lead to Truth.

Thank you

[Arete]

Everything else is not Meaningless.

Everything else is Human.

If everything else were meaningless, there would be no Science. It is Humans, who created Science.

Behind every deed, there is a doer.

Behind every Unjust deed, there is an Unjust doer.

Behind every Just deed, there is a Just doer.

Science, being a Quest for Truth, is a just deed, and just deeds are done by Just Humans.

Therefore, Science needs Humans who are Just.

Gentleness and being Understanding & compassionate are also the other qualities of Just Humans. Derision, Reluctance, condemnation etc, the negative qualities, pertain to Unjust Humans.

Unjust Humans do not do Science, because they do Injustice and Injustice does not lead to Truth.

Thank you

 

This is false. Science is amoral. That is, the application of the scientific method to an investigation is independent of morality. Applying moral conditions like "compassion" and denying moral conditions like "derision" from science is nonsensical.

 

The only thing that makes science what it is, is adherence to a particular method of investigation. Reluctance, derision, arrogance, condemnation, etc etc etc on the part of an investigator doesn't make their work unscientific. Complementarily, kindness, understanding, acceptance, compassion etc etc etc on the part of an investigator won't make investigation which does not adhere to the scientific method, scientific.

 

As an example the Nazi experiments on Jewish prisoners were scientific. They weren't very just, compassionate or understanding. They were in fact pretty unjust, cruel and deserving of widespread condemnation. On the other hand, Reiki is a method of compassionate healing which is fundamentally not scientific.

[Phi for All]

Don't we have responsibility towards Truth?

 

<snip>

 

When we come across a Truth, should we promote it or suppress it?

 

<snip>

 

Why should Truth be the victim of dogmatic events or channels, why can't it travel through the pure channels of Science and reach everyone? Why can't it travel on the back of the promoters of Truth?

 

<snip>

 

Science is; quest for Truth.

This is SO wrong. Because "Truth" with a capital T is actually subjective and varies from person to person, the very thing that science tries so studiously to avoid. The kinds of bias that go into any single person's vision of what Truth is is anathema to science. Science is NOT the quest for Truth, because once you think you've found "The Truth", you stop looking for a better explanation. Science is the quest for a better explanation.

 

Everything else is not Meaningless.

Everything else is Human.

Again, science strives to remove what is human and not objective in order to remain free of the taint of error and bias. You may think this strips science of its humanity, but that's what this tool is for. Adding human weakness into science would be like wrapping the head of a hammer in bubble wrap so it doesn't hurt you if you hit your finger. A very human idea, but it ruins the tool for its intended purpose.

[proximity1]

This is SO wrong. Because "Truth" with a capital T is actually subjective and varies from person to person, the very thing that science tries so studiously to avoid. The kinds of bias that go into any single person's vision of what Truth is is anathema to science. Science is NOT the quest for Truth, because once you think you've found "The Truth", you stop looking for a better explanation. Science is the quest for a better explanation.

 

 

Again, science strives to remove what is human and not objective in order to remain free of the taint of error and bias. You may think this strips science of its humanity, but that's what this tool is for. Adding human weakness into science would be like wrapping the head of a hammer in bubble wrap so it doesn't hurt you if you hit your finger. A very human idea, but it ruins the tool for its intended purpose.

 

 

While I'm no longer keen to leap with both feet back into this morass, I think it's worth noting that the post you propose here to correct did, after all, mention that, (I qoute):

 

"Science is ; quest for Truth." (my emphasis added)

 

and,

 

"When we come across a Truth, should we promote it or suppress it?" (my emphasis added)

 

in the second citation, it appears to me that "a Truth" is worth noting and distinguishing from an attributed call for the establishment of "the Truth." I don't know whether the capital "T" there is intended or inadvertent but at the very least, there's an indefinite article ("a") preceeding that "Truth" with a capital "T". Perhaps that's worth noting?

 

It strikes me that your corrective comments take little if any account of those aspects in the post to which youre replying.

[Phi for All]

While I'm no longer keen to leap with both feet back into this morass, I think it's worth noting that the post you propose here to correct did, after all, mention that, (I qoute):

 

"Science is ; quest for Truth." (my emphasis added)

 

and,

 

"When we come across a Truth, should we promote it or suppress it?" (my emphasis added)

 

in the second citation, it appears to me that "a Truth" is worth noting and distinguishing from an attributed call for the establishment of "the Truth." I don't know whether the capital "T" there is intended or inadvertent but at the very least, there's an indefinite article ("a") preceeding that "Truth" with a capital "T". Perhaps that's worth noting?

 

It strikes me that your corrective comments take little if any account of those aspects in the post to which youre replying.

What aspect of "Truth" are you seeking to defend with regard to science? The posts I quoted quite clearly reference Truth as something obvious and undeniable, like it comes complete with a beacon attached that shines in a part of the spectrum only the few Truly intelligent can discern. Truth, like proof, are not goals science should concern itself with; always seeking the better explanation, the explanation with the most evidence to support it, is a more objective, meaningful, trustworthy goal. The minute you think you've found The Truth, everything else is cast off, but seeking the best explanation forces us to continually refine our theories.

 

To me, Truth is related to faith, belief in things you can't know with certainty. Trust is more related to the natural world, the scientific world, and is belief in the best explanations using sound methodology.

[proximity1]

What aspect of "Truth" are you seeking to defend with regard to science? The posts I quoted quite clearly reference Truth as something obvious and undeniable, like it comes complete with a beacon attached that shines in a part of the spectrum only the few Truly intelligent can discern. Truth, like proof, are not goals science should concern itself with; always seeking the better explanation, the explanation with the most evidence to support it, is a more objective, meaningful, trustworthy goal. The minute you think you've found The Truth, everything else is cast off, but seeking the best explanation forces us to continually refine our theories.

 

To me, Truth is related to faith, belief in things you can't know with certainty. Trust is more related to the natural world, the scientific world, and is belief in the best explanations using sound methodology.

 

I tried to keep my perspective and my comment as strictly limited as possible to the posts immediately referenced --and that was for the same reasons that I prefaced my comment with "...I'm no longer keen to leap with both feet back into this morass, I think it's worth noting...."

 

Your question asked for a judgement. And there's nothing per se wrong with that; but I think it helps to recognize that we're dealing with a matter of judgement when posing that question.

 

To answer you as best I can, ideally my idea is probably very near or the same as what I imagine yours to be (based on your comments here) when it comes to "What aspect of "Truth" are you seeking to defend with regard to science?" --" truth" as: a piece of correct information about the phenomena of the physical world as provisionally verified by tested experimental data and shown (or supposed sometimes mistakenly ) validly relevant to the theory concerned.

 

But that's an ideal and an idealistic interpretation. At the same time, I think that if you or if we asked scientists of all sorts that same question, we'd get many of them offering the same or very similar answers--in their minds' view of the question-- but, if we examined in addition not just what they say or claim but what their observable behaviors indicate about "What aspect of "Truth" these many varied people, as scientists, are seeking to defend with regard to science?, " we'd come, I think, to the view that spoken responses indicate one set of answers and their actual science practice indicates another and much larger, "hazier" repsonse as to what they are seeking to do and to defend "in science."

 

Science is done by people living in a culture, by people who are inevitably shaped and conditioned by that culture. That means that any ideal view of science's objective of "objectivity"is one thing and its realization is another, lesser, thing, no matter how wonderful the scientists are in their own or others' judgement--as I see it.

 

You've given us your view of it as you write, here, "...To me, Truth is related to faith, belief in things you can't know with certainty. Trust is more related to..." (& ect.)

 

Unless this disputation is nothing but a matter of semantical diffferences, "truth" in science seems to me to plausibly include those beliefs the scientist or other holds for reasons which are based on scientifically-reasoned chains of argument. Or, as Russell put it, it's not what scientists think that matters but the foundations--reasons for--their thinking it. These are better or worse depending on the reasoning talents of the person or people involved. Some very shoddy "science" and scientific reasoning can be done by those who are by any acceptable standard real scientists. We accept that. In fact, as it seems to me, scientists, as a community, do what so many other "fraternities" commonly are found to do: they typically cut their fellow members the kind of slack which they'd not extend to people outside the fraternity/sorority. That is human and it happens everywhere every day. And this site, as an example of such communitarian inclusion or exclusion is as good an example of that as any other I could cite.

 

Some (or one) of those I've thought to be among this site's most interesting thinker-participants have (has) been formally banned here for reasons which, in my opinion, are no better than or other than their (his or her) inability to bow and courtsey to the approved opinions as set out by their enforcers. That, too, of course, is another heterodox view from the very obvious positions set out here by those in authority.

 

But this thread is inevitably all about authority and when and how it is or isn't properly applied--in this case in science and by scientists. It's thus a philosophical issue as well as a matter of interest and concern for scientists.

[Anilkumar]

This is false. Science is amoral. That is, the application of the scientific method to an investigation is independent of morality. Applying moral conditions like "compassion" and denying moral conditions like "derision" from science is nonsensical.

 

The only thing that makes science what it is, is adherence to a particular method of investigation. Reluctance, derision, arrogance, condemnation, etc etc etc on the part of an investigator doesn't make their work unscientific. Complementarily, kindness, understanding, acceptance, compassion etc etc etc on the part of an investigator won't make investigation which does not adhere to the scientific method, scientific.

 

As an example the Nazi experiments on Jewish prisoners were scientific. They weren't very just, compassionate or understanding. They were in fact pretty unjust, cruel and deserving of widespread condemnation. On the other hand, Reiki is a method of compassionate healing which is fundamentally not scientific.

 

You are absolutely right. Science is Amoral [if Amoral means, not concerned with morals i.e. Science is neither moral nor immoral]. [i have reservations here, for later]. The knowledge that Science is Amoral, is a higher level awareness, difficult to attain in this enticing world. However, to stop it at that would be akin to giving incomplete information. Because, people in the Science world [or any other field] are not Amoral. They are moral and/or immoral.

 

Why is Science Amoral?

 

It is Amoral because, it is a Tool, it is Information, Knowledge, Awareness, Truth. All Tools are Amoral.

 

Now, then comes the Complication.

 

This tool, OR Any tool, can be used for both the Deeds, Moral & Immoral. As I said earlier, behind every deed there is a doer. Now where does Science fit into this? It fits like this;

 

The Doer does the Deed with the help of the Tool. Moreover,

 

A Just Doer does a just Deed with the help of an Amoral Tool, and

 

An Unjust Doer does an Unjust Deed with the help of the same Amoral Tool.

 

All Tools are Amoral and so is Science.

 

My reservations now;

 

However, as you said, Science is adherence to a particular method of investigation. This makes Science; also a Deed. Strict Adherence to the Particular Method, is being Just to Science, and so a Just deed. By adhering to the particular method of doing something, one is being Just. Here, Strict Adherence is the act of being Just.

 

In addition, Intent Perusal, scientific analysis & scrutiny is THE PARTICULAR METHOD which is to be strictly Adhered to, to deal with New Ideas, which is the scientifically Just process to deal with New Ideas, and not with Disregard & Derision, which is not the scientifically Just process to deal with New Ideas.

 

One who adheres to the Particular scientific Method, is the Scientist, and is being Just. One who does not adhere to the Particular scientific Method, is not a Scientist, and is being Unjust.

 

Now,

 

You say the Nazi experiments on Jewish prisoners were scientific. The question here is not about being Just, while doing experiments. Also the question here is not about whether Science is Amoral or not. The question here is about doing Justice to new ideas. How can one who is not Just, do justice? How can one who does not adhere to the particular method [Perusal, scientific analysis & scrutiny of new ideas] of doing Science; do Science and be called a Scientist?

 

Now, would you give my mark back? You took it so recklessly, even before listening to my side of argument. I call this as being Unjust. I have lost quite some like this. [i already have very few of them owing to my offbeat thoughts, I suppose. Some have even been stolen by clowns fooling around. Of course, I don't protest. Because I don't care. I doubt anybody cares. You know I have given a lots of positive marks on a thread; but only after the conclusion of the discussion. And I have not given a single negative mark until now. Not even to those who stole mine. Because I am aware that I am a small person, not the final judge. All I can do is Reason & Appreciate.]

 

 

This is SO wrong. Because "Truth" with a capital T is actually subjective and varies from person to person, the very thing that science tries so studiously to avoid.

 

I capitalize words to highlight them. No other meaning is to be attached to it. I have made it clear earlier in this thread. You can see I have capitalized other words, too.

 

 

The kinds of bias that go into any single person's vision of what Truth is is anathema to science. Science is NOT the quest for Truth, because once you think you've found "The Truth", you stop looking for a better explanation. Science is the quest for a better explanation.

 

 

Again, science strives to remove what is human and not objective in order to remain free of the taint of error and bias. You may think this strips science of its humanity, but that's what this tool is for. Adding human weakness into science would be like wrapping the head of a hammer in bubble wrap so it doesn't hurt you if you hit your finger. A very human idea, but it ruins the tool for its intended purpose.

Oh no,

 

Truth cannot be bettered. Truth is Absolute. And Science is not the quest for the better explanation, it is the quest for the Best Explanation. And that Best Explanation itself is the Truth. The best is that which cannot be bettered. And so, Science is the quest for Truth. How?

 

Let us see;

 

2 + 2 makes 4.

 

This is the Absolute Truth. And cannot be Bettered. It is the Best.

 

Truth cannot be Bettered. Our Perception of the Truth [which we don't know] is the thing, which we endeavor to Better, and that process/endeavor of Bettering our Perception of the Truth [which we don't know] is the thing, which we call Science. Through Science, we endeavor to Better our Perception of the Truth [which we don't know]. We don't Better Truth. Truth is Absolute it can't be Bettered.

 

Let us not go adrift from the current issue. We have here gathered, not to decide whether Science is the quest for Truth, or is it the quest for Better Explanation. One thing is true here; that whether Science is the quest for Truth, or is the quest for Better Explanation, for both cases, we need NEW IDEAS. Moreover, we also need, the Intent Perusal & Scrutiny of those ideas and Correcting them if they are Wrong and Furthering them if they are Right.

 

And to do that i.e. to decide whether something is, RIGHT or WRONG one must be JUST. Because,

 

Unless; One is Just, one's decision or verdict is not going to be Correct. And so;

 

For the scrutiny of new ideas and the spread of the scientific spirit, we need people who are Just & Morally sound.

 

New Ideas, their Intent Perusal, Scrutiny, Correction, Promotion; is an important activity of Science. And one must be Just in doing it.

 

 

***************

 

 

Proximity,

 

Thank you for the compassionate support.

 

Yes, you got me Right. I was not referring to, 'my perception' of the Truth [or the subjective Truth Perception. Subjective perceptions may/may not, be the Truth]. Truth is not Subjective. Perceptions of the Absolute Truth, are Subjective.

 

Oh, how nicely you have put it. Science is a Culture! Great. Yes, it is a culture, of adhering to a set of Methods [as Arete said], adhering to a set of Principles, besides being also a Tool [as Phi For All, put it]. And Derision of, and Disregard for, new ideas don't belong to that culture. And those who do it, don't belong to Science.

[netizenk]

Because an 'idea' is just an idea... until scientific method is applied to it and it is supported by experimental evidence...

 

In other words, if you have a 'great idea' that would amend or challenge an existing scientific theory the burden of proof is on you because it requires a lot of evidence for something to become a scientific theory in the first place. To make your 'great idea' at all interesting to science, you need to apply the scientific method to your idea, you need to come up with and execute good experiments and you need to gather evidence. Once you have that and it supports your idea, it will be much easier to grab the attention of the scientific community which will bring more experiments and more scrutiny to your idea and if it stands that test it will move up to the level of hypothesis and eventually become a new theory as evidence mounts.

 

To just toss a 'great idea' not supported by any evidence out there and expect anything but skepticism is a sign of misunderstanding of how science works...

[Anilkumar]

Because an 'idea' is just an idea... until scientific method is applied to it and it is supported by experimental evidence...

 

In other words, if you have a 'great idea' that would amend or challenge an existing scientific theory the burden of proof is on you because it requires a lot of evidence for something to become a scientific theory in the first place. To make your 'great idea' at all interesting to science, you need to apply the scientific method to your idea, you need to come up with and execute good experiments and you need to gather evidence. Once you have that and it supports your idea, it will be much easier to grab the attention of the scientific community which will bring more experiments and more scrutiny to your idea and if it stands that test it will move up to the level of hypothesis and eventually become a new theory as evidence mounts.

 

To just toss a 'great idea' not supported by any evidence out there and expect anything but skepticism is a sign of misunderstanding of how science works...

 

 

This is getting repetitive. I am not blaming anybody here. The problem is, the repeated failure to recognize the issue. The issue is repeatedly abandoned & needs to be repeatedly brought to the table. This issue has been discussed several times over.

 

The above is a perfect answer. However, it is off the mark. Off the mark; because, there is failure to recognize the issue.

 

Nobody is advocating here, for the acceptance of ideas not supported by evidence.

 

Everyone knows here, the definition of ‘that idea’, which is acceptable to the scientific world.

 

What we have to recognize is; the fact that ‘Basically we live in a Selfish world’.

 

Selfishness fails to recognize the value of a thing and recognizes that thing as valuable, which better suits its self interests.

 

Now let me try to explain this, in this way;

 

What has been said in the above post, summarily is, ‘There must be scientific value in an idea for it to get accepted.’

 

To make my point clear, let me generalize the above statement.

 

‘There must be VALUE in anything for it to get accepted’. Or

 

‘The thing that has value gets accepted/recognized’.

 

Let us take the example of the Miss world pageant.

 

‘The woman who is the most able, or according to our generalized definition, the woman who has VALUE, gets the crown’.

 

Now is this as simple as it sounds? This is similar to saying ‘The scientific idea that has scientific value gets accepted’. Are both as simple as they sound. I can change the values of the variables and give different examples. Let me do it by changing one at a time and then both variables at a time.

 

‘The Actor who has value gets the Oscar’. Then to - ‘The Actor who is best in acting gets the Oscar’.

 

‘The Athlete who has value gets the championship’. Then to - ‘The Athlete who is best in the concerned sport gets the championship’.

 

‘The politician who has value gets elected’. Then to – ‘The politician who is most concerned about the people gets elected’

 

Now let me change both variables at a time;

 

‘The person who is innocent gets vindicated’.

 

‘The person who is guilty gets the blame’ [is recognized as the culprit].

 

Are all the above, true?

 

If one has the time & money and is ready take the trouble, one can find and meet the women who are more beautiful and able than the woman crowned this year as the miss world. Many beautiful women are left out because of many varied reasons; like they are, deprived of opportunity, deprived of endorsers, social/economical/political hindrances, some are pushed aside, etc. They can’t come up. It is not that everything that has value gets its true value.

 

What I am trying to show here is; behind every JUDGEMENT, [ACCEPTANCE/RECOGNITION of the THING THAT HAS VALUE] there is the JUDGE.

 

Behind every Judgment, there is the human element, which tends to be selfish.

 

It becomes hard even for Truth to get recognized due to the selfish human element.

 

To say; ‘The thing that has value gets accepted/recognized’, is easier said than done. Because;

 

We live in a selfish world, which fails to recognize the value of a thing and recognizes that thing as valuable, which better suits its selfish interests.

 

I am forced to repeat here; because the issue has been discussed already, but has been raised again, it is bound to happen. The following are the very alarming words of no small persons.

 

“In the temple of science are many mansions, and various indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have led them thither. Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, the assemblage would be seriously depleted, but there would still be some men, of both present and past times, left inside. Our Planck is one of them, and that is why we love him.” — Albert Einstein [Address (1918) for Max Planck's 60th birthday, at Physical Society, Berlin, 'Principles of Research' in Essays in Science]

 

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”- Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (1950), 97. Quoted in David L. Hull, Science as a Process (1990).

 

These persons had ideas that had Value. Despite of that, these persons said those words. Imagine the hardship they must have faced in this selfish world, to get the true value to Truth.

 

What an irony. We have to struggle to bring Truth; it’s Value.

 

This selfishness in the world is nauseating.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Anilkumar

[iNow]

Is it not at least equally selfish of you to assume that your opinions on the matter are more valid than the opinions of others who disagree?

[ACG52]

If the idea is presented in a rigourous, rational, formalized manner, then it would merit more consideration than a cranks hand-waving posts on a internet site.

 

Just sayin...

[The Peon]

I think it's only natural. Scientists concern themselves with reality and facts. Truth is god to science. So by necessity a hypothesis without substantial evidence is suspect, and the "perpetrator" propagating it is viewed with skepticism. That is why scientists for centuries who make reality shaking discoveries have always been met with harsh criticism. It's to be expected.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

When a new theory is proposed, Science deals with it only in either of the two ways. Either Reject it by making the flaws in it scientifically obvious, or if that cannot be done, then the only other option that remains would be to Accept it. Any & all other acts of criticism do not belong to Science. Moreover, there is no such thing as 'Acceptance' in Science. A theory is Acceptable until it becomes inconsistent. Then, when a theory becomes inconsistent, it is modified. However, if Science cannot modify it consistently, it is rejected.

This is an over-optimistic view. Scientists are justified in being skeptical of new theories that do come with supporting evidence, because most supporting evidence turns out to be wrong:

 

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

 

In addition, sensible Bayesian reasoning suggests that if a past theory has a great deal of evidence to support it, and a new theory not nearly as much, we should not rush to change our minds. We would end up chasing statistical flukes and experimental errors more often than not.

[Ophiolite]

 

 

What we have to recognize is; the fact that ‘Basically we live in a Selfish world’.

 

Behind every Judgment, there is the human element, which tends to be selfish.

 

It becomes hard even for Truth to get recognized due to the selfish human element.

 

This selfishness in the world is nauseating.

Cooperation, from the cellular level, up to the level of the biosphere, is at least as important as conflict and selfishness. I'm sorry that random factors in your own life have led you to an alternate conclusion.

[Anilkumar]

iNow, on 07 Dec 2012 - 09:51, said:

Is it not at least equally selfish of you to assume that your opinions on the matter are more valid than the opinions of others who disagree?

 

Why do you contend that I assume that my opinions on the matter are more valid than the opinions of others who disagree? I am making an argument, here, in an open discussion. Why don’t you make yours, instead of substituting with assumptions about me?

 

 

If the idea is presented in a rigourous, rational, formalized manner, then it would merit more consideration than a cranks hand-waving posts on a internet site.

 

Just sayin...

 

I suppose Max Planck must have presented in a rigorous, rational, formalized manner. I don’t think he was hand waving.

 

We need to acknowledge the fact that, Scientists are human beings, no disrespect intended. They would behave like human beings, irrespective of their profession. The human weaknesses are integrating parts of all human beings, irrespective of what they do. Otherwise, they would be Super-human.

 

Those who derive sadistic pleasure and just say things, don’t heed these things.

 

In place of deriving sadistic pleasure, the sadists should care to read books, which is a better alternative hobby and by that they would come to know such facts as below;

 

Max Planck submitted in his doctoral dissertation, ideas on the second law of thermodynamics, to the University of Munich in 1879.

 

Max Planck said, "None of my professors at the University had any understanding for its contents. I found no interest, let alone approval, even among the very physicists who were closely connected with the topic. Helmholtz probably did not even read my paper at all. Kirchhoff expressly disapproved . . . I did not succeed in reaching Clausius. He did not answer my letters, and I did not find him at home when I tried to see him in person at Bonn. I carried on a correspondence with Carl Neumann, of Leipzig, but it remained totally fruitless" And Planck's reaction to the resistance he experienced was similar to what I have given above. "This experience," he said, "gave me also an opportunity to learn a new fact-a remarkable one, in my opinion: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it"

 

[M. Planck, Scientific Autobiography, F. Gaynor, trans. (Philosophical Library, New York, 1949).]

 

 

I hope this stops the one from making pejorative comments. If this is not sufficient, I can give more substantiation of similar kind.

 

Just saying . . . Doesn’t help, anybody.

 

Being Just helps; one, and all others.

 

 

Cap'n Refsmmat, on 07 Dec 2012 - 21:19, said:

Scientists are justified in being skeptical of new theories

 

Cap’n,

 

The scientists, whom Planck indicates [above], were not being skeptical. The skeptic would analyze. Here they were neglecting, setting aside without even perusing it. They were being inconsiderate.

 

Take a look at this;

Karl Pearson an English Mathematician/Statistician writes in the Biography of Francis Galton [K. Pearson, ‘The Life, Letters and Labours of Francis Galton’ (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, England, 1924)], that he [Pearson] sent a paper to the Royal Society in October 1900, containing statistics in application to a biological problem. He tells, "A resolution of the Council [of the Royal Society] was conveyed to me, requesting that in future papers, mathematics should be kept apart from biological applications." Eventually Pearson was disillusioned by that. Pearson wrote a letter to his mentor, the eminent Scientist and cousin of Charles Darwin, Francis Galton, and sought his advice "I want to ask your opinion about resigning my fellowship of the Royal Society." Galton addressed his protégé sympathetically, and helped Pearson to start an academic periodical named ‘Biometrika’, where in, mathematics in biology would be unequivocally encouraged. In the first issue of the periodical, Francis Galton wrote an article showing the necessity of mathematics in biology and the need to encourage it, and said "a new science cannot depend on a welcome from the ‘followers’ of the older ones".

[Highlighted by me.]

 

All this, is not, skepticism. This is human weakness or prejudice.

 

The followers of the older ones are always Inconsiderate, to the new. This is very different from being Skeptical. We should be careful & well aware not to murk the line between ‘Being Inconsiderate’ & ‘Being Skeptical’.

 

And ACG52,

Deriving the pleasure of being pejorative, doesn’t help in getting hold of such a subtle matter.

 

The Peon, on 07 Dec 2012 - 20:16, said:

I think it's only natural. Scientists concern themselves with reality and facts. Truth is god to science. So by necessity a hypothesis without substantial evidence is suspect, and the "perpetrator" propagating it is viewed with skepticism. That is why scientists for centuries who make reality shaking discoveries have always been met with harsh criticism. It's to be expected.

Cap'n Refsmmat, on 07 Dec 2012 - 21:19, said:

In addition, sensible Bayesian reasoning suggests that if a past theory has a great deal of evidence to support it, and a new theory not nearly as much, we should not rush to change our minds. We would end up chasing statistical flukes and experimental errors more often than not.

Another of the right answers off the mark, i.e. not relevant to the issue.

 

The issue here is not rushing to change mind or discarding Truth, reality and facts. Nobody is asking for that. The issue is, ‘intent and considerate perusal of new ideas’.

 

It is clearly evident there is a lack of it, not because the new ideas are substantiated/unsubstantiated or because most of the new ides are wrong; but because it is human weakness, like being Inconsiderate, Prejudicial, Intolerant to everything that opposes one’s adherence or standing and disturbs ones subjective way of thinking & even existence.

 

To label that ‘Being Inconsiderate’ as ‘Being Skeptical’ is a misleading fallacy. The two are different. The skeptic would analyze [using the scientific method]. The Inconsiderate avoids.

 

Any new scientific issue needs to be treated by reasoning scientifically and not by being inconsiderate. During a scientific reasoning, the Self is to be totally left out and the focus should be only on ‘searching for the Truth’. When the scientific reasoning brings up a truth that is contrary to what we hold, it must be accepted justly with the scientific spirit in our heart. There the self should not come in our way. To do the scientific reasoning and to bring up the Truth, we must stop being inconsiderate to new ideas and must peruse them intently.

 

It is not sufficient if Truth is God to Science. Truth must be God to us too. And only when we too consider that Truth is God, we become truthful, not plagued by self interest/taste/liking, and we are eligible to do Science. Is Truth God to us too? We would accept Truth as God, ONLY, when we leave out the Self and consider ‘search for Truth’ as a deed above self interest/taste/liking.

 

Ophiolite, on 08 Dec 2012 - 14:35, said:

Cooperation, from the cellular level, up to the level of the biosphere, is at least as important as conflict and selfishness. I'm sorry that random factors in your own life have led you to an alternate conclusion.

 

Yes, cooperation, conflict, selfishness are the ones that have made our life, what it is. Cooperation and conflict on issues come under the ambit of scientific spirit. However, selfishness has no role to play in Science.

 

Human life and Science is marred by the, unfair acts of selfishness. And, the Inconsiderate & Prejudiced handling, by the followers of the old, of the proponents of the new, is one of them.

 

However, there are selfless beings, who are considerate towards new ideas. I have discussed that in the beginning of this thread.

 

Thank you for being sympathetic.

------------ 0000000 ------------

When a person brings a new thought, whether substantiated or unsubstantiated, what is important is that the person is interested in doing Science. That should be valued and nurtured. To do that, one must peruse intently what the person has brought and if it is well founded, it must be given scope, if not, the person must be educated. That is how we practice and propagate Science. That is what, is doing Science. Being inconsiderate to new ideas is, not doing Science and is being unscientific.

[Ophiolite]

-------

When a person brings a new thought, whether substantiated or unsubstantiated, what is important is that the person is interested in doing Science. That should be valued and nurtured. To do that, one must peruse intently what the person has brought and if it is well founded, it must be given scope, if not, the person must be educated. That is how we practice and propagate Science. That is what, is doing Science. Being inconsiderate to new ideas is, not doing Science and is being unscientific.

This is not how science is practised, therefore in your view science is practised incorrectly.

 

How do you account for its success?