 |
There are currently, 478 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Scientists 'too quick' to judge outsiders
Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006 @ 19:52:08 UTC by vlad
|
|
by Anna Salleh/ ABC Science Online
Scientists may say they are dispassionate defenders of the unfettered
pursuit of truth. But history suggests they are often guilty of being
irrational and narrow-minded, says an Australian philosopher.
Emeritus Professor Miles Little of the University of Sydney argues his case in the current issue of the journal Medical Humanities.
"Science is supposed to be the ultimate in rationality. It's supposed
to be the ultimate in evidence and the assessment of evidence," says
Little, a former surgeon now at the university's Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine.
"But science doesn't behave like this in the face of aberrant science."
Aberrant
science can involve the use of methods or the arrival at conclusions
the majority don't agree with and is often shunned as if it was
fraudulent, he says.
And yet, says Little, some aberrant science is by honest hardworking scientists who produce very important results.
While
fraud is clearly an undesirable form of aberrant science, Little says
those whose only crime is to use unusual methods or reach unusual
conclusions should not be treated with the same contempt.
Instead, he says, they should be greeted with open-mindedness, a feature that is supposed to be the hallmark of good science.
Little
says an example of such unfairly treated aberrant science is something
that challenges the current scientific paradigm, the given set of
assumptions about how the world works.
An example of this is the claim, made by immunologist Dr Jacques Benveniste in the late 1980s.
He
said a solution of antibodies so dilute they were unlikely to contain
any molecules could activate white blood cells, a claim could be used
to support the claims of homoeopathy.
Little says the scientific
community's immediate response to what they saw as "dysfunctional
science" was to attack Benveniste personally and to vilify and
humiliate him.
"The way the judgement was made was not scientific," says Little.
While
subsequent attempts failed to reproduce Benveniste's results, Little
says the outcome of other cases of aberrant science have been
eventually accepted.
One example is Professor Joseph Lister
who argued against the wisdom of the 19th century that pus was a sign
of infection by germs, which should be prevented from entering wounds.
"The majority of surgeons rejected it out of hand," says Little.
Lister
was seen as a "young whippersnapper, defying well-established
tradition, flying in the face of authority" and it took the next
generation of surgeons to accept his views.
Little says a
related category of unfairly treated aberrant science is something that
challenges the accepted ideology of the day.
An example of such "ideological unacceptable science" is the work of psychologist Professor Cyril Burt.
Burt
argued last century that studies of twins showed that innate genetic
factors played a more significant role in intelligence than most people
thought at the time.
"At that time this was politically a very incorrect thing to say," says Little.
Educational
psychologists of the day argued any environmental circumstances could
overcome genetic disadvantage and Burt became the "paradigm of
villainous science".
"He was denigrated in a way which made it seem that he was utterly dishonest," says Little.
Although
Burt was largely vindicated later, the damage to his reputation remains
to this day, says Little, even though it is generally accepted that
genetic factors interact with environmental factors in shaping
intelligence.
"So great is the effect of what was said about him
is that you can't even quote Burt in your essays in most sociological
and psychological schools," says Little.
Destructive effects
Little says scientists' prejudice against aberrant science reveals a failure of the community to live up to its own rhetoric.
Science
is supposed to allow for freedom to experiment, including in unusual
ways that could challenge scientific paradigms, he says.
It is also supposed to allow for the possibility of scientists making mistakes.
Instead
of vilifying those who step outside the bounds of what is regarded as
acceptable science, Little says scientists should first investigate
their claims using the objective criteria, said to be central to good
scientific practice.
Failure to do this means that useful
science is ignored, productive laboratories are closed down and careers
are often destroyed unnecessarily, he says.
In other words, says Little, scientists should think twice before judging their colleagues badly.
They
should ask what exactly about the scientist's work is bothering them
and acknowledge if it is because the aberrant scientist is challenging
their preconceptions.
Source: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1768862.htm
Via KeelyNet News
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Scientists 'too quick' to judge outsiders (Score: 1)
by seanu on Thursday, October 26, 2006 @ 03:02:39 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Sounds very much like Hannés Alfvén, who's seen as a modern day Galileo. If the reader doesn';t know him, he (like Hubble) didn't agree with redshift=distance theory and, unlike Hubble, found evidence which refutes the current domga, that is redshift=distance and ultimately the Big Bang theory. The "community" didn't like that, refused to publish any more of his articles and denied all telescope time.
|
|
|
|
|
