Scientists can actually be a tad like this sometimes, sad considering the scientific field should be more open to the natural change and flux as new better supported theories form.
If you want documented evidence of how childish scientists can be, there is a book called The Hubble Wars. It’s about the trials and tribulations of the Hubble telescope project.
Dr Brian Cox was asked why isnt pluto classed as a planet still
he said when it was first discovered it was the only dwarf ice planet they had heard of.
now there is about 253 of them (which seems like a big number…i may have made that bit abit more than it is)
technically if your going to include one…
Bryan, it’s often said with some cynicism that Science advances one corpse at a time.
It’s also been said that a scientist is someone who requires an overwhelming mountain of evidence to change his mind. The difference between a scientist and an ordinary person is that the ordinary person will go on ignoring the mountain.
I find it odd that those who claim to advance science and understanding are often the most resistant to actually changing the way they think or perceive something. Zahi Hawas springs to mind.
A TRUE Scientist got to his way of thinking by seeing LOTS of evidence. Darwin didn’t think up some bullshit, write it down, and then think “Wow, this is gonna piss alot of people off *trollface* .” He went over ALOT of evidence, formed a hypothesis, found more evidence, more evidence lead to the theory(ies ) being formed, and so on. So, if you have a mountain of factoids that says THIS, then you need a BIGGER mountain of factoids to say “No, it is like THAT, not like this.” Otherwise, every single theory would be overturned by every tiny bit of contrary evidence, be it fake, or real, or misunderstood. Say, astronomers… they are seeing things fly apart all without cause, well, it HAS to be the gods just making their arm chairs more comfy, right? It can’t be something like “dark energy” or something…
(Channeling my 8th grade Science teacher) The scientific method was devised to break down all observable phenomena into their most basic constituent facts.
The problem is that the method itself is still a work in progress that requires further development as our ability to observe also continues to develop.
Scientists can actually be a tad like this sometimes, sad considering the scientific field should be more open to the natural change and flux as new better supported theories form.
If you want documented evidence of how childish scientists can be, there is a book called The Hubble Wars. It’s about the trials and tribulations of the Hubble telescope project.
And dammit, I STILL say that Pluto is a legitimate planet!
i like this.
It is: a dwarf planet.
Amen!!
Dr Brian Cox was asked why isnt pluto classed as a planet still
he said when it was first discovered it was the only dwarf ice planet they had heard of.
now there is about 253 of them (which seems like a big number…i may have made that bit abit more than it is)
technically if your going to include one…
so they decided to leave it out.
Don’t feel bad, Pluto. I’m not a planet, either.
Bryan, it’s often said with some cynicism that Science advances one corpse at a time.
It’s also been said that a scientist is someone who requires an overwhelming mountain of evidence to change his mind. The difference between a scientist and an ordinary person is that the ordinary person will go on ignoring the mountain.
I find it odd that those who claim to advance science and understanding are often the most resistant to actually changing the way they think or perceive something. Zahi Hawas springs to mind.
A TRUE Scientist got to his way of thinking by seeing LOTS of evidence. Darwin didn’t think up some bullshit, write it down, and then think “Wow, this is gonna piss alot of people off *trollface* .” He went over ALOT of evidence, formed a hypothesis, found more evidence, more evidence lead to the theory(ies ) being formed, and so on. So, if you have a mountain of factoids that says THIS, then you need a BIGGER mountain of factoids to say “No, it is like THAT, not like this.” Otherwise, every single theory would be overturned by every tiny bit of contrary evidence, be it fake, or real, or misunderstood. Say, astronomers… they are seeing things fly apart all without cause, well, it HAS to be the gods just making their arm chairs more comfy, right? It can’t be something like “dark energy” or something…
(Channeling my 8th grade Science teacher) The scientific method was devised to break down all observable phenomena into their most basic constituent facts.
The problem is that the method itself is still a work in progress that requires further development as our ability to observe also continues to develop.