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.
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.
Planet Nine is coming…
With the exception of Pluto and the case of Mars/Jupiter, every planet’s orbit can be approximated by using a mathematical formula on the planet closer to the sun or further from the sun. Mars/Jupiter is different because the formula says there is a planet where we have the asteroid belt, so I think the math still works there. This leaves Pluto in an odd orbit, distance to the sun comparable to Neptune (at least in planetary orbit scales), and similar in composition to many other objects in the same area.
The argument for it being a planet falls apart at that point.
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.
Problem is that a lot of scientists has invested a major part of their life working on proving some theory. They have had their results published and they have passed peer review from the rest of the scientific community. If you now find some new evidence that conflicts with their theories or works that they used as references for their work, they tend to react defensively.
This reaction can range from myopic nitpicking, which actually isn’t that bad a thing in these cases, to out and out attacks on the person that dares to suggest that the results of their work might not be the one ultimate truth.
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.
it’s written in the history book, therefore, it must be true.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
*EMAIL — Get a Gravatar