Bram J
Retro Guru
ajm":xbs4r37g said:Bram J":xbs4r37g said:Science can't be bent, it is also self-correcting. Plus in most cases scientists working in the industry have to come up with stuff that simply works, so it has to be correct. Scientists at universities will neither be likely to bend science. Only scientists who do research on request of politicians might apply to your idea. But they can't bend the facts either, facts are simply that.
Your faith in science is touching, but sadly misguided. Scientists working for universities (and everywhere else for that matter) are very likely to bend science; whether consciously or not, every scientist has their own opinions and worldview and that affects every single thing they do and see.
You say that facts are facts and can't be changed... however bare "facts" are actually not that easy to come by. The same evidence can be viewed by two scientists with completely incompatible theories as supporting or proving their own pet theory correct, and yet both may be completely wrong; it often happens that several stories (theories) can be made to fit the bare facts.
Scientists work under a system of organised peer pressure where in some fields, having a minority opinion or worldview is enough to ensure that they will never receive funding and will be effectively unemployable. Sadly if you read enough science history you will find that all-prevailing scientific theories held as indisputable fact have actually been completely wrong and it is only years, decades or even centuries later that the tide turns.
Ah, a very sensible post, thank you.
I don't see how my 'worldview' would influence my conclusions when trying to figure out if the males of a certain bird-species are heavier than the females of said species. Of course in other areas this might be the case. However, if errors are made they will be set straight eventually.
"The same evidence can often be interpreted in more than one way to fit different theories." That is absolutely correct, but there is no problem here. In this case neither theory has been proven and further research is needed. This is where the subtle difference between evidence and proof becomes visible.
"history..." Well I happen to be quite informed on science history and what you say is again true. Classic example was the way Darwin was ridiculed in his day. But he was right, and this is the cool part: it got proven. Darwin also held the minority opinion, which eventually became the majority opinion (in science) due to the accumulation of evidence and proof. I acknowledge that in some fields of research holding a minority opinion can indeed be tough, but when this minority is right, eventually it will become accepted. Plus there's a difference between opinion and proven point.
Thanks,
Bram