At 01:17 AM 04/19/2000 -0400, MikeBGene@aol.com wrote:
>Steve:
>
> >So, how do you reconcile these two paragraphs? On one hand you complain
> >about scientists using the "broad-brush" approach to paint ID into a
> >creationist corner. Then you return the favor and use the broad-brush to
> >tarnish the whole scientific community.
>
>Good point. Since I am easily worked up by attempts to stifle academic
>freedom,
>I over-reacted with excessive rhetoric. My apologies.
>
>Mike
Mike
What you have described in you last few posts on this topic is behavior
that is intrinsic to science.
We all should keep in mind that science is a very conservative enterprise
and you are seeing this in action at Baylor. While such conservatism runs
the risk of rejecting novel truths, it also strongly protects against
falsehoods being accepted as truth. The alternative to this conservative
behavior of the scientific collective is to lower the barrier of what is
accepted to be true, which would increase the risk of sanctioning ideas
that are false.
The conservatism of science, which you dislike so much, is not evidence of
some conspiracy against religion, but it is evidence of a collective
reluctance to readily embrace new ideas. This reluctance has been applied,
not only to religious matters that overlap with the natural world, but
also to new naturalistic ideas as well. In other words, science has been
very consistent in its reluctance to embrace novel ideas. This behavior
has long been a defining characteristic of science, as Thomas Kuhn pointed
out several years ago.
Some examples of how science initially failed to embrace novel ideas that
later turned out to be true include Barbara McClintock and mobile genetic
elements, and Howard Temin and reverse transcriptase (both of whom went on
to win Nobel prizes for their work that was scorned at first). Then
science also was slow to embrace phrenology and cold fusion, both of which
turned out to be false. Thus, novel ideas that are true seem to be
accepted, albeit reluctantly, while novel ideas that are not true are
eventually discarded. So, a conservative scientific enterprise works very
well.
I think that it is appropriate that novel paradigms have a
higher-than-usual hurdle to cross before being accepted by the scientific
collective.
Steve
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Human Oncology and
Member, UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine
600 Highland Ave, K4/432
Madison, WI 53792
Office: (608) 263-9137
FAX: (608) 263-4226
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 19 2000 - 12:03:16 EDT