Re: Experts Worry That Public May Not Trust Science

Cliff Lundberg (cliff@noe.com)
Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:35:02 -0700

Biochmborg@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 9/17/99 8:05:44 PM Mountain Daylight Time, cliff@noe.com
>writes:

>> Yes. But here we talk of concepts that are broad enough to verge on the
>> philosophical. Paradigms, if you will; a level of discourse that working
>> scientists with their attention on the details must inevitably find
>> annoying, as it suggests an undermining of the foundations of their
>> work.

>On the contrary, working scientists like myself use paradigms all the time;
>we tend to create and test a dozen a month, give or take. It's all part of
>the job, something you would know if you were a working scientist.

I suppose terms get cheapened in the evolution of language; maybe
that's a recognized 'law' in that field. When I was in school a paradigm
shift was a scientific revolution. Now lab workers flip a few new ones
in the pan for breakfast every day.

What is the point of this emphasis on the 'working scientist'? It seems
an empty argument from authority, self-authority at that. Hasn't it been
shown that fundamental breakthroughs are just as likely to come from
outsiders?

>As I tried to point out, what you as a non-scientist would consider a mystery
>more than likely is no mystery to the scientists who study it. I know of one
>thing you consider to be a mystery -- the Cambrian explosion -- and I also
>know it is no mystery to those who study it.
>I would rather concentrate on
>the real mysteries than waste time debating issues that are no mystery at
>all, which you would know if you at least studied the scientific literature.

The vertebrates appeared suddenly in the fossil record. They appeared
fully-formed, as anatomically complex as modern vertebrates. Granted,
'complexity' is a somewhat subjective term. But I don't see that this
geologically instantaneous emergence has been satisfyingly explained
by extrapolating from shifts in the color gene frequencies of moths etc.
Some different kinds of evolution must have taken place, wild and weird
things. Imaginative theorizing is needed, not contentment with what's in
the literature. Where would your protein-first model be if you'd accepted
established ideas?

--Cliff Lundberg  ~  San Francisco  ~  cliff@noe.com