Logic vs. emotion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#81
SY said:
If you were a biologist, then yes, your views would disqualify you from serious scientific discourse in the same way that being an anti-Einstein crank would disqualify one from any serious discourse in physics (all assuming that you weren't bringing some startlingly new experimental evidence to the table). However, I know several very competent physical scientists who hold, ahhh, unconventional beliefs in areas that do not relate to physical science. No problems for them professionally. I suppose that there may be biologists who believe in aether or phlogiston, but I've spent less time among that community than among physicists and physical chemists so can't say for sure.
Click to expand...

All neatly separated specialisms.

As PinkMouse was saying earlier, the only research that ever gets done is that which interests scientists enough to do it. And they are all specialists. It probably explains quite a lot.
 
#90
PeteMcK said:
Interesting reponses, but to my biased reading of the article it's more about psychology i.e. predisposition to points of view and effective persuasion than the scientific method (or anyone's qualifications)
Click to expand...

Yup, and that is what the scientific method is designed to try and control, only sometimes it doesn't quite work.

We're only human after all. 😉
 
#96
SY said:
If you were a biologist, then yes, your views would disqualify you from serious scientific discourse in the same way that being an anti-Einstein crank would disqualify one from any serious discourse in physics (all assuming that you weren't bringing some startlingly new experimental evidence to the table). However, I know several very competent physical scientists who hold, ahhh, unconventional beliefs in areas that do not relate to physical science. No problems for them professionally. I suppose that there may be biologists who believe in aether or phlogiston, but I've spent less time among that community than among physicists and physical chemists so can't say for sure.
Click to expand...

I can't go along with this. It is a condition tantamount to dissociative identity disorder. A failure to integrate. Look at the limitations Einstein's inability to accept that God might be a dice player imposed in him. If you want to be a scientist then you have to give up belief to the best of your ability, or have it ripped from you, or accept that the heights and depths of insight will be denied you. Darwin's insight destroyed his belief.

Bob Dylan said:
Everybody must get stoned.
Click to expand...

w
 
#98
wakibaki said:
Darwin's insight destroyed his belief.
Click to expand...

Few scientists have the courage to follow the evidence no matter where it leads like Darwin. That courage marks out the greats from the also-rans. You're right about Einstein - his 'God does not play dice' belief scuppered his later career. ISTM he became somewhat more of a Randi-like figure in his opposition to quantum theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom