Agnostic.com

5 1

Has anyone noticed a tendency within the scientific community to defend a paradigm? Where does this arise from and who benefits?

GilbertusAlbans 4 Feb 9
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Thanks for the comments, I'm thinking for example of the work of Egyptologists.
When people like John Anthony West raised questions about whether the Great Sphinx was much older than commonly believed, he was criticized by the people he called the 'quackademics'.
When watching interviews of Egyptologists at the time, they seemed to be closed to any possibility of his ideas holding water.
I was introduced to the subject through the work of Graham Hancock, who has gathered information on a number of ancient megalithic sites, many of which he believed to be of much earlier origin that the accepted date.
He has criticized the scientific community for defending a paradigm that they seem to benefit from (or others benefit and they, by proxy). Namely that the development of our race does not seem to have been the simple ascent into the culture of today, which many would like us to believe.
It seems that we have had a more tumultuous journey, and there are definitely areas in which cultures of the past - and some present - have done things better.
West was noted to have a tendency towards 'conspiracy theories'. It is not difficult to understand where he is coming from when our past is kept in shadow.

Yeah, I'm not saying that bc there are problems with science that religion is better or something like that. . . I'm not sure what you are getting at with that link in relation to what I was saying.
This is a critique on how 'scientific' institutions defend ideas, often on tenuous evidence, bc they gain from it. This defense of certain ideas also manifests in the manner of trashing alternative theories, withholding funding, etc. regardless of whether the science is correct.
This has been seen time and time again throughout history and I wonder what kind of commonalities we can draw from such patterns of unprogressive hindrance to human understanding.

1

From whoever is funding their research.
Going against the expected outcome will dry up your resources, so if your grant sponsor sells hammers, you always find nails.

2

Yeah, they sure do! They defend their beliefs like anyone. We all have our pet beliefs and scientists are no different.. Especially after they have devoted their lives and reputations to their belief. That said, Scientists will usually surrender once it is proven.

I remember a paper I wrote in college about the likelyhood that we still carried "caveman" genes. I was ridiculed by my Anthropology Professor. My Genetics Professor thought it was interesting but unprovable. It is now nearly common knowledge that Europeans and Asians do carry these old genes. I still think they may find older traces in Africans. Of course, this would be "politically incorrect".

If scientists didn't defend their theories the very next lame-brained idea would wipe out a good theory.

3

The scientific community has every right to defend a paradigm until definitive contrary evidence is confirmed.

1

Is another religion man.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:22541
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.