Rem-13 Wrote:That's how its supposed to work but there are plenty of scientists who treat 'established' theories and such as religious doctrine. Challenging conventional wisdom is seen as career suicide. The scientific community is pretty brutal in its inner politics. Its not as inflexible as Catholicism obviously, but then Religion is not in the business of flexibility.
That doesn't happen, unless you're an ID proponist. Challenging conventional wisdom is the bedrock of science, it's where the money and fame is made. The fact is that people who don't have a shit's worth of evidence cry the loudest when academia tests their theories relentlessly and nothing comes up.
Science doesn't care about the established theory, or conventional wisdom. It only cares about what you can or cannot prove.
Rod Hardwood Wrote:wish i could find a link to this, but google fails me.
Because it's probably not true, or you heard it from an ID website.
Rod Hardwood Wrote:not that i blame all of it. hard sciences like mathematics are straight-forward. applied sciences (engineering, chemistry, etc) are softer, but it's still results-based. evolutionary biology seems as much philosophy as anything else, and the position "im right and UR STOOPID DERPA DURR" is not helping.
All science is results based, it's not like there is a cabal of evolutionary biologists sitting around deciding that Evolution is the best way to corrupt society.
They support evolution theory because it's useful, and explains a lot of things about biochemistry, genetics, and biology. It provides predictive capabilities.
Rod Hardwood Wrote:it's the only thing we have that elevates discussion of long-term evolutionary theory above pure philosophy.
Saying stuff like that makes me sad face.
