Re: how science works

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

For those of you who haven't heard of "N rays", I recommend:
http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html

Here's an example of the failure of skepticism!  Probably caused by the
well known character of the French, chauvinism.

bc   half French,  who thinks he's not a chauvinist.

William Beaty wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Richard Hake wrote:
>
> > Yes, as Debbie says "science works through lots of bickering," so a=
> s
> > to finally arrive at a "community map." In Hake (2001a), I give a
> > capsule description of the "scientific method" as practiced by most
> > research scientists (rather than "as typically presented"):
>
> I think it goes much further than that.  There is a vast difference
> between asking for evidence versus derision and ridicule, between
> scientific skepticism versus irrational disbelief.  Scientists are hu=
> man
> beings, and the problem of irrational disbelief is well known by many
> scientists, if not by the textbook authors:=20
>
>   "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponent=
> s and
>    making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventu=
> ally
>    die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."  - Pl=
> anck
>
>    "Science advances funeral by funeral."=20
>
> Skepticism is a very necessary component of science.  I define skepti=
> cism
> as "refusing to accept new discoveries without proof."  Irrational
> disbelief is different, it leads to emotional attacks on new discover=
> ies,
> including attempts to silence the voices of the discoverers, as well =
> as
> emotional attacks in peer review which can halt funding of the
> replications that would validate the new discoveries.  If someone say=
> s
> "OK, prove it", that's skepticism.  If someone says "I don't care how
> strong your evidence is, the very idea is ridiculous"  ...that's NOT
> skepticism.=20
>
> Here's something scary.  Are you aware of the common findings of anal=
> yzers
> of accidents, where each full-blown accident is often found to be par=
> t of
> a group of close calls and ongoing unsafe practices?  What if the sam=
> e is
> true of revolutionary ideas in science?  What if the almost-suppresse=
> d
> discoveries are just the visible part of a larger problem?  The works=
>  of
> McClintlock and Wegner (and Ahrrenius' ions, and Chandrasekhar's blac=
> k
> holes, and Gold's deep rock bacteria) were almost lost because of the=
>  very
> strong negative reaction of the scientific community.  This suggests =
> that
> it's quite possible that some revolutionary discoveries WERE complete=
> ly
> lost.  Note that with this kind of "science accident", only the near
> misses could ever be visible.
>
> Some quotes about how science actually works:
>
>  "Perhaps the only thing that saves science from invalid conventional
>   wisdom that becomes effectively permanent is the presence of maveri=
> cks
>   in every generation - people who keep challenging convention and
>   thinking up new ideas for the sheer hell of it or from an innate
>   contrariness."  - D. Raup, Paleontologist
>
>  "It is as fatal as it is cowardly to blink facts because they are no=
> t to
>   our taste."   - John Tyndall
>
>  "Whenever the established ideas are accepted uncritically, but=20
>   conflicting new evidence is brushed aside and not reported because =
> it
>   does not fit, then that particular science is in deep trouble"
>                                                        - Dr. T. Gold
>
>  "New ideas are always criticized - not because an idea lacks merit, =
> but
>   because it might turn out to be workable, which would threaten the
>   reputations of many people whose opinions conflict with it.  Some p=
> eople
>   may even lose their jobs."    - physicist, requested anonymity
>
>   "It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservat=
> ive
>   scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with th=
> e
>   preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible.  =
> When
>   this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their
>   prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them."=
> =20
>    - Arthur C. Clarke, 1963
>
>  "We must care to think about the unthinkable things, because when th=
> ings
>   become unthinkable, thinking stops and action becomes mindless."
>    =A0=A0 - James W. Fulbright
>
>   "Sit down before facts like a child, and be prepared to give up eve=
> ry
>    preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysse=
> s
>    Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."  - T.H. Huxley
>
>  "Biologists can be just as sensitive to heresy as theologians."
>    - H.G. Wells
>
>  "The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange=
> =20
>   protein and resists it with similar energy.  It would not perhaps b=
> e=20
>   too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting anti=
> gen=20
>   known to science."   - Wilfred Trotter
>
>  "The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the fal=
> se
>   appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not dire=
> ctly
>   by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, b=
> y
>   prejudice."  - Schopenhauer
>
>   "...By far the most usual way of handling phenomena so novel that t=
> hey
>    would make for a serious rearrangement of our preconceptions is to
>    ignore them altogether, or to abuse those who bear witness for the=
> m."
>             - William James
>
>  "If I want to stop a research program I can always do it by getting =
> a few=20
>   experts to sit in on the subject, because they know right away that=
>  it=20
>   was a fool thing to try in the first place." - Charles Kettering, G=
> M
>
>  "If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you=
> .
>   You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling=
>  the
>   world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every n=
> ow
>   and then, a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderf=
> ul.
>   If you are too much in the habit of being skeptical about everythin=
> g,
>   you are going to miss or resent it, and either way you will be stan=
> ding=20
>   in the way of understanding and progress. "      - Carl Sagan
>
>  "It's like religion.  Heresy [in science] is thought of as a bad thi=
> ng,
>   whereas it should be just the opposite."  - Dr. Thomas Gold
>
>  "I believe there is no source of deception in the investigation of
>   nature which can compare with a fixed belief that certain kinds of
>   phenomena are IMPOSSIBLE."  -William James
>
>  "There is nothing particularly scientific about excessive caution.
>   Science thrives on daring generalizations."  - L. Hogben
>
>  "Let the mind be enlarged... to the grandeur of the mysteries, and n=
> ot=20
>   the mysteries contracted to the narrowness of the mind" - Francis B=
> acon
>
>  "It would seem to me... an offense against nature, for us to come on=
>  the
>   same scene endowed as we are with the curiosity, filled to overbrim=
> ming
>   as we are with questions, and naturally talented as we are for the
>   asking of clear questions, and then for us to do nothing about, or
>   worse, to try to suppress the questions..."  -Lewis Thomas
>
> Also see:
>
>   NEW IDEAS IN SCIENCE,  T. Gold
>   http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/newidea1.html
>
> ((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))=
> ))))))
> William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST we=
> bsite
> billb@eskimo.com                                  http://www.amasci.c=
> om
> EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird sc=
> ience
> Seattle, WA   206-789-0775          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webh=
> ead-L