>There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This
>is what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral
>by funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by
>convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its
>opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with
but the "new generation" is taught dogma; textbooks are locked into teaching
things that are wrong but refuse to be corrected
for instance: certain things should be mentioned but are not mentioned to the
"new generation" allowing them to live in ignorance:
John S. Bell, "On the impossible pilot wave". Foundations of Physics 12 (1982)
"But why then had Born not told me of this 'pilot wave'? If only to point out
what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More
extraordinarily, why did people go on producing 'impossibility' proofs, after
1952, and as recently as 1978? When even Pauli, Rosenfeld, and Heisenberg,
could produce no more devastating criticism of Bohm's version than to brand it
as 'metaphysical' and 'ideological'? Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in
text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to
the prevailing complacency? To show that vagueness, subjectivity, and
indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate
On Wednesday, 24 January 2018, 22:49, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
A trusting soul over at lenr-forum.com wrote that science does not exclude
different thinking, meaning it does not reject valid ideas:
Seriously, look over those accomplishments and tell me science excludes
With some example such as:
We have often discussed this issue here. There is no need to reiterate the
whole issue but let me quote my response. If you have not read Hagelstein's
essay linked to below, you should.
There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This is
what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral by
funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing
its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
I have mentioned famous examples of rejection. They include things like the
airplane, the laser and the MRI.
I put the word science in quotes above because it is not science that excludes
so much as individual scientists who do. They do this because rejecting novelty
is human nature, and scientists are ordinary people with such foibles despite
their training. See Peter Hagelstein's essay here, in the section, "Science as
an imperfect human endeavor:"
Many scientists not very good at science, just as many programmers write
spaghetti code, and many surgeons kill their patients. A surprising number of
scientists reject the scientific method, such as the late John Huizenga, who
boldly asserted that when an experiments conflicts with theory, the experiment
must be wrong, even when he could not point to any reason.
One of the absurd claims made with regard to this notion is that science never
makes mistakes; that in the end it always gets the right answer and it never
rejects a true finding, so no valuable discovery is ever lost. Since many
claims have been lost and then rediscovered decades later this is obviously
incorrect. More to the point, this claim is not falsifiable. If a true
discovery is lost to history we would not know about it. Because it is lost.
The logic of this resembles the old joke about the teacher who says, "everyone
who is absent today please raise your hand."
In other technical disciplines such as programming, people forget important
techniques all the time. The notion that science does not make mistakes is
pernicious. It is dangerous. Imagine the chaos and destruction that would ensue
if people went around thinking: "doctors never make mistakes" or "bank computer
programmers never make mistakes" or "airplane mechanics never make mistakes."