On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote:
Unlike some critics against mainstream scientist, > my main feeling is that many scientists share with pseudo-scientists a > love for theory, teleology, coherence, and when facing reality, > serendipity, anomalies, they refuse to accept it. > I like teleology. But I try not to mix teleology with my (hobby) science. > for those pretended scientist, if you observe an evidence of something > that should not exist, you should... > IGNORE IT... and keep being sure about the theory. > I think it can be a little hard to decipher the behavior of scientists with regard to a new discovery. If the discovery is benign and falls under Kuhn's "normal science," there's not much to the matter and there is no controversy. With discoveries that do not fall under normal science, perhaps there are three groups of scientists, classified by their reaction to the anomaly under investigation: - Scientists who take a passive or fleeting interest in it, and are open to chalking it up to something we don't understand yet, whether they are optimistic or skeptical. They may even have something of an opinion, but they reserve the option to change their mind. Meanwhile they're busy doing other things and are happy to let other people worry about it. (Perhaps the vast majority.) - Scientists who take an active interest in the anomaly and champion further research (a small minority). - Scientists who are outspoken in their criticism of the science giving rise to the anomaly (a small minority). The behavior of the last group can be the most challenging to understand, and it is easy to misinterpret. In their criticisms they seem to be addressing the scientists who have produced the anomaly and the hobbyists who follow it on message boards and mailing lists. In fact, they are more likely to be addressing potential funders who might be listening in on the conversation. In years of tight budgets, perhaps they do not want to see part of the limited funding going to their research diverted to the deluded group that is inveigling people with the alleged anomaly. The takeaway here is that it seems like they are arguing that the science is bad, but this is only a half-hearted effort. Really what has happened is that they knew all along that the science was bad and they just don't want the funders to waste their attention and limited analytical ability on the matter, because they could end up confusing themselves and extravagantly spending money on the wrong thing. Who can blame the funders for being liable to confusion? They did not study the science involved for years and years and acquire the crucial insights. You have to protect them from themselves, and that might mean taking a little bit of a roundabout approach and revealing little snippets here and there about why the science is bad. But this type of demonstration would neither stand up to the scrutiny of one's peers, nor is it expected to. It is polemics. In other contexts and on other topics, these people, or some of these people at any rate, are capable of dropping the whole "psuedosceptic" tack and providing a solid, scientific argument. Eric
