Scientists 'Too Quick' to Judge Outsider / Aberrant Research

[DougalLongfoot]

Scientists 'too quick' to judge outsiders
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.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1768862.htm

 

[Rrose_Selavy]

Surely the pont of the scientific method is that it is repeatable and "aberant" science by it's nature hasn't yet been proven or demonstrated not to be a mistake or a fraud. No wonder scientists are suspicious.


-

 

[DougalLongfoot]

I think the article agrees with your point Rose, what he is saying is that scientists should look at the experiments and argue with problems there, and try and prove them wrong. Instead many scientists dismiss new ideas out of hand because they don't fit in with established wisdom. I didn't copy the whole article so if you follow the link you'll see his full arguement.

 

[TinFinger]

imho science now about research untill you find a theory
instead of thinking of a theory and testing it.
sort of lets hope this leads somewhere instead of knowing it will(perhaps)

 

[Anonymous]

Do you think any scientists are reading this and will actually do anything about it?

Rynner, you out there?

 

[lupinwick]

I think the article agrees with your point Rose, what he is saying is that scientists should look at the experiments and argue with problems there, and try and prove them wrong. Instead many scientists dismiss new ideas out of hand because they don't fit in with established wisdom. I didn't copy the whole article so if you follow the link you'll see his full arguement.

I'd guess looking at the history of science there must be many instances where the scientists have been derided as fools (or worse) by the establishment only to be proven right later.

I wonder if its also partially to do with scientific study being so narrow (down to fields or sub-fields within a discipline) and then anything which doesn't quite fit that view is ignored. Perhaps we need more polymaths, or get rid of the current artifical boundaries and go back to calling it "natural philosophy" and make it more encompassing.