Re: Questioning scientific community credibilty

Keith H Duggar wrote:

> response to John Harshman and GoerdieBoy
>
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>It's unfortunate that you snipped all the context.
>
> It's strange, groups seem to vary in the amount of quoting
> their regulars prefer. t.o generally has much more quoting
> than I prefer. Anyhow, I'm glad you found the context you
> were looking for and I do try my best to quote reasonably.

I like the amount of quoting that doesn't require me to remember any
posting history or go back to check.

>>I'll go see. Ah, I guess I'm annoyed by the phrase
>>"overturn uniformitarianism", which implies that
>>uniformitarianism no longer applies as a principle, or
>>that acceptance of the existence of impact craters is
>>incompatible with it.
>
> Ok, I understand the annoyance. You took uniformitarianism
> in the broader sense, a general principle applied in many
> contexts.
>
>>If all you are saying is that changes in acceptance of a
>>theory generally happen slowly, or corresponding to the
>>rate at which evidence accumulates, and that people vary
>>in their tenacity in holding to the old theories, some to
>>the point of unreasonable stubbornness, then I have no
>>argument with you. You seemed to be saying something much
>>stronger, about catastrophic scientific revolutions and
>>paradigm shifts.
>
> I think that was more-or-less what I said. Especially the
> "slowly" and "unreasonable stubbornness" (by some)
> aspects. Let me see, let me quote my original post
>
> By pointing out the obvious, that they are human? Anyone
> who has studied the history of science knows that if one
> cycle is repeated time and time again it is this: there
> is a period lasting decades or longer [slowly] during
> which dogma is zealously defended by scientists who
> "know" they are "right" [unreasonable stubbornness] even
> though a new paradigm destined to replace the dogma has
> already been proposed.
>
> It seems our views are compatible. Do you think so? Is there
> anything in that statement that you disagree with or that
> seems unreasonable?

I think you overstate and use some inflammatory wording, like "dogma".
New "paradigms" are accepted, for the most part, when the evidence that
they should be accepted becomes good. There are always a few curmudgeons
you can point to who never accept it, and others who cling longer than
they should. But you are giving the impression, whether that's your
intention or not, that the majority of scientists choose to ignore the
implications of new data, and I don't see that.

> Maybe your impression of "saying something much stronger"
> came from my suggestion to Jody
>
> If you want to know more about this phenomenon, start by
> reading Thomas Kuhn (though many scientist have pointed
> out and/or experienced the same).
>
> John Wilkins also seemed to have focused on this comment
> and taken it in a way I didn't intend as well. It was just
> suggestion to Jody for a starting point in exploring the
> sociology of science. Kuhn was a genesis of sorts and it
> seems like a good place to start for her.
>
>
>>If you would like another example of this sort of thing,
>>go no further than this:
>>
>>Feduccia, Alan. 2002: Birds are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer
>>to a Complex Problem. Auk 119:1187-1201.
>>
>>But I never would have thought of it in reference to your
>>last post.
>
> Interesting, I would like to read it if you are suggesting
> it. I don't have access to it at the moment so if you have
> the PDF and don't mind emailing it to me please do.

Afraid I don't have that. The Auk is behind the times. But if you get to
a library, also check out this as an explanation of some of the ways in
which Feduccia fits your requirements:

Prum, Richard O. 2003: ARE CURRENT CRITIQUES OF THE THEROPOD ORIGIN OF
BIRDS SCIENCE? REBUTTAL TO FEDUCCIA (2002). Auk: 120:550?561.

[snip]

.

Loading