Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: OT Probably controversial

Subject: [OM] Re: OT Probably controversial
From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:03:53 +1100
That's pure Popperian falsification but does not entirely describe  
what is really going on. Kuhn had the better of it with a view of  
science as a defensive cultural activity and what we have seen  
recently is a paradigm shift in which most scientists have converted  
to acceptance in the face of overwhelming evidence. A few cling to  
the previous paradigm and a few choose to be contrary, often as  
gamble that they can get a high profile , or more conspiratorially,  
suspect funding.
This is not a sudden thing. I've been teaching global warming theory  
in senior high school since 1990 - and no, I did not write the  
curriculum. How come everyone has suddenly noticed? Tipping point?
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



On 27/02/2007, at 8:17 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:

> I'm afraid that the history of science is replete with many  
> instances of
> scientists watching out for their own best interests and egos before
> attempting to disprove their own previously published hypotheses.   
> They
> are human and for many there is much money and prestige at stake.
>
> I take it all with a very large grain of salt.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Johann Thorsson wrote:
>> This is true.  Part of the problem is that scientists speculate,  
>> that is
>> what they are trained to do.  They hypothesize based on all kinds  
>> of data
>> and scenarios, but they don't (or should not) claim to know the  
>> truth.
>> There is a reason why nothing can be more than 99.9% certain, and  
>> why things
>> are supposed to be "true" when the probability is 95%.  So "truth" in
>> science is not the same as other people understand it to be.   And  
>> all
>> scientific debates must be viewed with the fact in mind that the  
>> whole
>> purpose of all scientific work is to disprove something, you try  
>> to disprove
>> your own work or someone's else's work, but if you fail you claim  
>> that you
>> can't disprove it, but not that something is true.  I don't think  
>> people
>> generally understand this.
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>



==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz