> Look at your last publication, and tell me how much paper you devoted to
> attempting to disprove your thesis. I am sorry, but science doesn't work
> like that, and you ought to know it. We are attempting to present a case
> which has 1000 detractors for every supporter. Why should you expect me to
> do your homework for you. What keeps science advancing is the interactions
> of the community, not the individual scientists, each of which labors under
> some paradigm or other. Every scientist is attempting to advance some
> thesis, not to shoot one of his or her own down. Be realistic, Steve, quit
> grousing and name-calling, and expecting me to do your homework for you!
Art, I'm really surprised to hear you say this. If the position it implies is
really what you meant, my respect for you will drop quite a bit. There is no
question that every scientist works within a theoretical framework and that
evidence gets filtered through that paradigm. No one disputes that, but I have
to disagree with the implications of the rest of this paragraph. First,
Steve's position was that you and your colleagues are selectively reporting the
evidence. You don't dispute that, and in fact you seem to admit that this is
the case. Do you think that selectively reporting evidence, and ignoring
evidence against your thesis, is A) honest and B) an effective way of
discerning whether the thesis is correct? Does the fact that your thesis is a
minority position free you from the burden of dealing with the totality of the
evidence in an honest way?
I also cannot accept the idea that two groups of scientists advancing their
theses, without regard to an honest search within the two camps to determine
whether their thesis is correct, helps science advance. The tone of your
statement here reminds me very much of when I coached competitive high school
and college debate. Because a person had to be both the affirmative and the
negative during a tournament, he is forced to take positions he disagrees with.
In the confines of that game, the only way to defend a position that you don't
agree with is to quote selectively from the evidence and be disingenuous. But
that was a game, and the goal was to win, not to discern which position is
true. Is it really your position that two sides, both acting disingenuously and
selectively reporting the evidence, somehow advances science? Who is to act as
the judge in this contest?
I would argue that not only can a person advocate a thesis without selectively
reporting the evidence, but that if that person wants his thesis to be an
accurate representation of reality, he or she MUST consider the totality of the
evidence. What else are we left with? Do you consciously ignore contrary
evidence and advance the thesis regardless of it? It seems to me that this is
the reverse of how scientists should operate. Rather than picking a thesis to
advance and then reporting whatever evidence can be made to seem as though it
supports that thesis, one should look at the evidence and then develop a thesis
that explains it. I'm not arguing for some sort of pure objectivity among
scientists, of course, but I think there is a realistic middle ground between
that and what you appear to be advocating, the notion that two opposing camps
acting in a disingenuous manner somehow advances science toward the correct
conclusion.
Ed