From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 23:38:40 MST
Michael writes
> Being aggressive about looking for disproofs of a
> cherished hypothesis is *very* much a part of the
> difference, and a key marker for distinguishing
> pathological science (and plain ol' jumping at
> conclusions) from the better sort.
*Some* of the best science, e.g. the work of Darwin
or Einstein, was furthered by the scientist in question
having just this attitude. In order to be right, he
wisely subjected his hypotheses to extreme skepticism.
But it's probably too hasty to dismiss those scientists
not so inclined as being involved in pathological science.
A lot of terrific contributions have been made by people
who prefer to let others play the role of skeptic, and
who are only interested in advancing their own ideas.
> There are a lot of people with advanced degrees who
> seem to give lip service [to this]. This is natural,
> it's *hard* to get good at that kind of intellectual
> honesty.
And, I'm saying, not an absolute requirement.
> And even the perfectly honest search for *worthy*
> criticism (sadly) tends to eliminate the unschooled
> and the autodidacts--"have you *read* the
> *literature*?"
I don't consider such a demand to be part of a
"perfectly honest search". I agree that often
I don't have time to entertain the musings of
some people, but putting them down with that
remark does not constitute an argument---even
when justified, it's definitely not part of the
science.
Lee Corbin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:41 MST