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.
A tad? Unfortunately I’d say it’s generally more than a tad. Humans nature seems to include a severe case of hating to be proved wrong, and even people in a field that’s all about proving and disproving things through experimentation get set in their ways.
One of the people who first theorized and tested for H. Pylori being capable of causing ulcers and gastritis eventually drank a culture of the stuff to be a test subject himself, to help prove that the stomach bug was giving him gastritis he didn’t have before.
While the extent to which some scientists cling to their preferred explanations can be frustrating both from the outside and from the inside of the field, it is also important to note that this plays an important part in ensuring, that science actually advances in the long run instead of picking shortcuts that look good at first but end up being huge detours or dead ends.
I’d rather have any finding double, triple, … dodecadouple-checked to make sure there aren’t any errors or biases in the measurements before they start developing technology with it that may or may not put lives on the line if the foundation is wrong.
While I’m more familiar with the natural sciences, I’d argue that for something like history, it’s equally important getting right rather than getting to the result fast. We’re not building new stuff with it, but we may base important decisions on the information we have about what has or has not worked before. At least we should, otherwise we’re bound to repeat the same mistakes.
Can you PLEEEEASE explain how the ‘global climate change’ fad took off so well, then?
I’m not disputing that climate change is occurring.
I’m disputing that mankind had/can have more than an infinitesimal effect on it.
Just look at the records (at least those that haven’t been erased) of the predictions for the global climate cycles.
Scientists were predicting BEFORE WW2 that no less than 5 cycles would be hitting their peaks in the first half of the 21st century and the SHORTEST of those cycles was/is 1500 years (well before the invention of the internal combustion engine).
Plus, nasa is detecting MARS is also going thru climate change.
I don’t think there’s enough humankind to effect there yet.
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…
Actually, 253 sonds a tad on the low side tome, but I live in the future with respect to when you posted this. It is definitely too low now, by at least one order of magnitude. I suspect even back in 2011 it was on the low side…
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.
Maybe it’s just me, but this sentiment often comes off as if people think scientists deliberately decided to exclude Pluto, while in fact they basically went
-‘Man, we’ve been discussing about these for a while now, but are we actually even s-speaking of the same things?’
-‘No, I don’t think so.’
-‘Guess we should compare notes on what we think of when we say and find a proper definition that we can all agree on then, otherwise, what’s the point of discussing about them.’
…
-‘Guess we either can either have a clear definition that gives us a number of planets in our solar system we can actually remember the names of or we have one where everything and their do is a planet.’
-‘My bad, guess the dog has to get his own definition then.’
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…
Some differences with science:
1. Theories, even (perhaps especially) established ones, accumulate points where they “fail”–where the assumptions limit the accuracy of the predictions they can make. Most scientists, especially in the particular field, are aware of these problems–that’s where their continuing work lies, after all. So a simple problem does not negate a theory–it may simply point to a (new) limit on its application.
2. A scientist deals in falsifiable theories–remember Pauli’s “that’s not even false”?–and so (ideally) enough evidence, or an elegant new idea, will eventually lead to a change in thought. But it often takes some time and effort, to consider the new theory, understand it, test its consequences, and so on. A radically new theory, like, say, relativity or quantum physics, can take decades to grasp and apply. More established (older?) scientists may not have the intellectual flexibility to make the shift, so it often takes a new generation of students to work things out. But the point is, in science, such a shift is possible, and there are rules that allow, even require it–when a new theory comes along that better explains the data. It’s less likely in law (how many obsolete laws are on the books decades after they no longer apply), or religion, literature, and so on. (Some say it’s even true in many cases in the social science–why must psychologists learn debunked theories of Freud, etc., while physicists and chemists don’t learn the theory of Alchemy, or the Phlogiston theory of fire?)
(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.
A tad? Unfortunately I’d say it’s generally more than a tad. Humans nature seems to include a severe case of hating to be proved wrong, and even people in a field that’s all about proving and disproving things through experimentation get set in their ways.
One of the people who first theorized and tested for H. Pylori being capable of causing ulcers and gastritis eventually drank a culture of the stuff to be a test subject himself, to help prove that the stomach bug was giving him gastritis he didn’t have before.
While the extent to which some scientists cling to their preferred explanations can be frustrating both from the outside and from the inside of the field, it is also important to note that this plays an important part in ensuring, that science actually advances in the long run instead of picking shortcuts that look good at first but end up being huge detours or dead ends.
I’d rather have any finding double, triple, … dodecadouple-checked to make sure there aren’t any errors or biases in the measurements before they start developing technology with it that may or may not put lives on the line if the foundation is wrong.
While I’m more familiar with the natural sciences, I’d argue that for something like history, it’s equally important getting right rather than getting to the result fast. We’re not building new stuff with it, but we may base important decisions on the information we have about what has or has not worked before. At least we should, otherwise we’re bound to repeat the same mistakes.
Can you PLEEEEASE explain how the ‘global climate change’ fad took off so well, then?
I’m not disputing that climate change is occurring.
I’m disputing that mankind had/can have more than an infinitesimal effect on it.
Just look at the records (at least those that haven’t been erased) of the predictions for the global climate cycles.
Scientists were predicting BEFORE WW2 that no less than 5 cycles would be hitting their peaks in the first half of the 21st century and the SHORTEST of those cycles was/is 1500 years (well before the invention of the internal combustion engine).
Plus, nasa is detecting MARS is also going thru climate change.
I don’t think there’s enough humankind to effect there yet.
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.
Actually, 253 sonds a tad on the low side tome, but I live in the future with respect to when you posted this. It is definitely too low now, by at least one order of magnitude. I suspect even back in 2011 it was on the low side…
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.
Maybe it’s just me, but this sentiment often comes off as if people think scientists deliberately decided to exclude Pluto, while in fact they basically went
-‘Man, we’ve been discussing about these for a while now, but are we actually even s-speaking of the same things?’
-‘No, I don’t think so.’
-‘Guess we should compare notes on what we think of when we say and find a proper definition that we can all agree on then, otherwise, what’s the point of discussing about them.’
…
-‘Guess we either can either have a clear definition that gives us a number of planets in our solar system we can actually remember the names of or we have one where everything and their do is a planet.’
-‘My bad, guess the dog has to get his own definition then.’
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…
Some differences with science:
1. Theories, even (perhaps especially) established ones, accumulate points where they “fail”–where the assumptions limit the accuracy of the predictions they can make. Most scientists, especially in the particular field, are aware of these problems–that’s where their continuing work lies, after all. So a simple problem does not negate a theory–it may simply point to a (new) limit on its application.
2. A scientist deals in falsifiable theories–remember Pauli’s “that’s not even false”?–and so (ideally) enough evidence, or an elegant new idea, will eventually lead to a change in thought. But it often takes some time and effort, to consider the new theory, understand it, test its consequences, and so on. A radically new theory, like, say, relativity or quantum physics, can take decades to grasp and apply. More established (older?) scientists may not have the intellectual flexibility to make the shift, so it often takes a new generation of students to work things out. But the point is, in science, such a shift is possible, and there are rules that allow, even require it–when a new theory comes along that better explains the data. It’s less likely in law (how many obsolete laws are on the books decades after they no longer apply), or religion, literature, and so on. (Some say it’s even true in many cases in the social science–why must psychologists learn debunked theories of Freud, etc., while physicists and chemists don’t learn the theory of Alchemy, or the Phlogiston theory of fire?)
(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.
A classic example of scientist being stubborn is Alfred Wegener treatment by the geologist when he first proposed continental drift. Very ugly
Another example is Dr. Daniel Jackson. His theories on the Giza Pyramids were never given their proper respect.