| 'yorz
|
| 912234. Mon May 28, 2012 11:38 am |
 |
|
| I'd have thought that the knowledge and hope to be but a stepping stone for others to find more and better is satisfying because so were others before you? |
|
|
|
 |
| Oceans Edge
|
| 912238. Mon May 28, 2012 11:48 am |
|
|
ahh but scientists are no more immune that the rest of us from ego and competitive nature and just wanting to be first.
In general, its not human nature to want to be the stepping stone to someone else's discovery |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 912239. Mon May 28, 2012 11:50 am |
|
|
| Who are these scientists who managed to work for a quarter century without questioning the premises of their work? And, more importantly, how did they manage to last that long in academe without someone else ever questioning them? And, finally, how on Earth did we ever manage to advance beyond the inventions and the knowledge we gleaned in the first fifty years or so of the modern age if the power of the old and the hidebound can be so deftly employed to thwart the young and the ambitious? |
|
|
|
|
| 'yorz
|
| 912240. Mon May 28, 2012 11:51 am |
|
|
I agree it's not in human nature to nurse that kind of gregariousness. But in science, which per definition must advance and develop...
If you reached your level of stayedness and get in the way of progress you should be sidelined. On the other hand, your fossillability could enrage and frustrate others so they will be even more determined to prove you're effing wrong. |
|
|
|
|
| Celebaelin
|
| 912257. Mon May 28, 2012 12:39 pm |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: | | Who are these scientists who managed to work for a quarter century without questioning the premises of their work? |
I'll PM you if you really want an answer to that. Suffice to say that I speak in part from personal experience and I know I am not alone in my opinion.
| exnihilo wrote: | | And, more importantly, how did they manage to last that long in academe without someone else ever questioning them? |
I didn't say that. In a field where all work is open to criticism via peer review the averagely conventional attracts less criticism than the new and therefore contentious. Throw in a bit of The Emporers New Clothes but gag the young boy and you're about there.
| exnihilo wrote: | | ... how on Earth did we ever manage to advance beyond the inventions and the knowledge we gleaned in the first fifty years or so of the modern age if the power of the old and the hidebound can be so deftly employed to thwart the young and the ambitious? |
I don't know what you consider to be 'the modern age', or for that matter what you would consider deft, but I do know that this sort of thing goes on all the time in academia. It's so widespread as to be commonplace, verging on accepted practice I'd say.
It's a collossal waste of public money, to say nothing of being personally highly inconvenient, and whenever I think about it I become incandescent with anger; rage, in point of fact.
Last edited by Celebaelin on Mon May 28, 2012 12:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 912259. Mon May 28, 2012 12:42 pm |
|
|
| It's certainly not a picture of academe I recognise as one who works in same. |
|
|
|
|
| clack
|
| 912260. Mon May 28, 2012 12:42 pm |
|
|
An individual scientist is no more immune to self-interest, ego, and cognitive biases than the rest of us.
It's the genius of science as a system, though, that an individual scientist's theories and findings are continually tested and contested by other scientists.
Would it be too much to take this system, this concept taken from science, of stating our case -- and then listening while others poke holes in our arguments -- into the atheist/theist debate?
Instead of saying our piece, then putting our fingers in our ears and singing "la la la" while the other side states their piece, then simply re-stating our piece as a response? |
|
|
|
|
| Celebaelin
|
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 912265. Mon May 28, 2012 12:49 pm |
|
|
| You realise how meaningless that page is to people who are not 'in the know', right? What's the problem that we're supposed to instantly divine from it? |
|
|
|
|
| 'yorz
|
| 912268. Mon May 28, 2012 12:53 pm |
|
|
| I thought it looked perfectly reasonable. |
|
|
|
|
| Celebaelin
|
| 912271. Mon May 28, 2012 12:54 pm |
|
|
| I would no more ask you to read that page than I would ask you to read Lamark rather than Darwin (and look at the trouble he got into). It is, as I said, TOTAL BOLLOCKS but people who work in the field should accept, nay, publicise that point and stop teaching it to biochemists as truth. |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 912274. Mon May 28, 2012 12:57 pm |
|
|
Oh, well that clears everything up, thanks. I don't even know from that if the problem is with the concept or with the WikiPedia page!
Clearly something you feel strongly about, but not being an expert I can't really comment except to say a cursory Google suggests nothing obviously wrong with it. So unless there's some kind of conspiracy to prevent anyone publishing alternatives I'm at a loss. |
|
|
|
|
| Celebaelin
|
|
|
|
|
| Celebaelin
|
| 912277. Mon May 28, 2012 1:11 pm |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: | | So unless there's some kind of conspiracy to prevent anyone publishing alternatives I'm at a loss. |
Your loss. |
|
|
|
|
| Oceans Edge
|
| 912280. Mon May 28, 2012 1:18 pm |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
