Jump to content
Strange

Are scientists arrogant, close-minded, and dismissive?

Recommended Posts

I don't know why my mind works this way but i value truths over anything, and i feel a lot of scientists dont work that way. Its all about following the method, even if it goes against their common senses (assuming they have any to begin with).

 

 

The whole point about science (and the reason it has been so successful) is that it isn't governed by "common sense" or sticking with what we currently know. It is all about following the evidence, wherever that lead. Even if it means moving outside of the nice comfortable box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The whole point about science (and the reason it has been so successful) is that it isn't governed by "common sense" or sticking with what we currently know. It is all about following the evidence, wherever that lead. Even if it means moving outside of the nice comfortable box.

It should be that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be that way.

 

 

And, with a few temporary exceptions, it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This sounds good to people, so good that it often makes them stop thinking any farther. What could be better than the truth (or Truth)?

 

But truth is subjective. What's true for one person isn't universal to all. That's not the way reality works.

 

Science is interested in where the evidence leads, that's all. When evidence stacks up to support an idea, and nothing falsifies it, and no other explanations have as much support, we accept that explanation as our current best, subject to change if other evidence is presented. In this way, science continually improves its understanding.

 

Truth makes us think we've found the answer, and we stop looking.

One could say: truth is that which is proven; nothing is proven in science. I think it was said the only place you'll find proofs is in maths.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dismissive

 

 

No. Just an observation based on the evidence.

 

But if you have something other than a dismissive one word post, please feel to present some evidence to support your case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would use the word 'terse' rather than dismissive; responses can be too short for the questioner, leading to that impression.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No. Just an observation based on the evidence.

 

But if you have something other than a dismissive one word post, please feel to present some evidence to support your case.

Evidence of lack of evidence perhaps?

Like dark matter, dark energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence of lack of evidence perhaps?

 

 

Not really. There is, occasional, evidence of individuals holding on to old ideas and refusing to accept new theories. There is even more occasional evidence of such people actively preventing (or attempting to prevent) the adoption of new ideas. But, in the end, the scientific process works: people publish and discuss their work, other reproduce it, it gains acceptance, and science has advanced another step.

 

But, as I say, if you think it doesn't work that way, then feel free to present some evidence. Your glib, closed-minded and slightly arrogant dismissals are getting a bit tedious.

 

 

 

Like dark matter, dark energy.

 

Of course, people made those things up for no reason at all, not because of the evidence. </irony>

 

Unless you want to come across as closed minded and dismiss the new evidence because you don't like it? Luckily, science doesn't do that. It is willing to think outside the box and consider new ideas when necessary. (Which brings us full circle. So feel free to repeat your dismissive comment.)

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This sounds good to people, so good that it often makes them stop thinking any farther. What could be better than the truth (or Truth)?

 

But truth is subjective. What's true for one person isn't universal to all. That's not the way reality works.

 

Science is interested in where the evidence leads, that's all. When evidence stacks up to support an idea, and nothing falsifies it, and no other explanations have as much support, we accept that explanation as our current best, subject to change if other evidence is presented. In this way, science continually improves its understanding.

 

Truth makes us think we've found the answer, and we stop looking.

 

Is it not entirely possible that is how it's supposed to be? Ive had the thought more than one time humans are not the smartest species on this planet, which would be a whole other thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not really. There is, occasional, evidence of individuals holding on to old ideas and refusing to accept new theories. There is even more occasional evidence of such people actively preventing (or attempting to prevent) the adoption of new ideas. But, in the end, the scientific process works: people publish and discuss their work, other reproduce it, it gains acceptance, and science has advanced another step.

 

But, as I say, if you think it doesn't work that way, then feel free to present some evidence. Your glib, closed-minded and slightly arrogant dismissals are getting a bit tedious.

 

 

Of course, people made those things up for no reason at all, not because of the evidence. </irony>

 

Unless you want to come across as closed minded and dismiss the new evidence because you don't like it? Luckily, science doesn't do that. It is willing to think outside the box and consider new ideas when necessary. (Which brings us full circle. So feel free to repeat your dismissive comment.)

It seems to me more often than occasional that scientists hold on to incorrect ideas, but it must be those occasions are advertised disproportionally, like Einstein saying, "God doesn't play dice with the universe," and Fred Hoyle rejecting the Big Bang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me more often than occasional that scientists hold on to incorrect ideas, but it must be those occasions are advertised disproportionally, like Einstein saying, "God doesn't play dice with the universe," and Fred Hoyle rejecting the Big Bang.

 

 

But neither of those held back the new ideas. If anything, their challenges (particularly in the case of Einstein) strengthened the theory as people analysed his arguments (e.g. Bell's Theorem). At the same time, a lot of people very quickly recognised the value of QM, GR, the bing bang model, etc.

 

There are occasional instances of papers not getting published or someones ideas being rubbished because of influential people who didn't like them. But I am not aware of many. Eddington and Chandrasekhar comes to mind...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is it not entirely possible that is how it's supposed to be? Ive had the thought more than one time humans are not the smartest species on this planet, which would be a whole other thread.

 

If we're supposed to stop looking when we think we've found the answer, then the world is flat and everything revolves around it. Stars are just holes in the black fabric masking us from Heaven.

 

We ARE the smartest species overall on the planet. Other species might be smarter in different aspects of intelligence. Chimps have better visual memorization than we do, for instance. But overall, we have advanced cognitive abilities across the board that gives us superior intelligence. I don't think that's arrogance talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

Discussion on redefinition of intelligence has been split

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/97997-redefinition-of-intelligence-split-from-are-scientists-arrogant/

 


It seems to me more often than occasional that scientists hold on to incorrect ideas, but it must be those occasions are advertised disproportionally, like Einstein saying, "God doesn't play dice with the universe," and Fred Hoyle rejecting the Big Bang.

 

When it happens it's usually when the result is not clear. Not having a consensus is understandable when the ideas are new — lots of science is clear in hindsight, because you know a lot more, and the connections with other parts of science become clear. I agree — these are blown out of proportion. Compare to the sheer number of new ideas, and acknowledge that there will be uncertainty while new science is being hashed out.

 

Often these examples are trotted out in the framing that scientists are expected to be devoid of emotion or other human foibles, which is ludicrous, and that this humanity is somehow a flaw in the process, which is also ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.