Re: [asa] String theory and what that means

Burgy wrote:
"> The phenomenon that disturbs me in Lee's book is the apparent "tribal
> mentality" among the scientific community for some problems. I first
> saw one of these when Shapely attacked Velikowsky's book 50 years ago,
> taking steps to quash it. The fact that Velokowsky's book was so far
> outside of reality was his rationale, and others followed him.
>
> Nowadays we cheerfully follow this lead in quashing YEC claims.
>
> But, again, it is the tribal mentality -- circling the wagons -- that
> concerns me. Let me focus on GW, not evolution or YEC claims. That
> tribal mentality seems (from here) to again be in full force."

Burgy,
  If by "tribal mentality" you mean that the scientific community is very
conservative and will only embrace novel and radical ideas that overturn
conventional wisdom when the evidence is quite compelling, then I agree
wholeheartedly that it exists but would argue that it is good. If you mean
that the scientific community is hostile toward those advocating radical
ideas without solid evidence that has been vetted with the typical
scientific methodology of that field, then I would again argue that such a
mentality is justified. No, I'm not a fan of ridicule and hostility as an
effective means of persuasion, but the scientific community is a
self-correcting, self-policing kind of body and it must have a means of
dealing with antigens. If you mean "tribal mentality" as a community that
will defend the consensus view at all costs, preventing all data and views
to the contrary from being published, then I might gently suggest that this
grossly misrepresents the scientific community, particularly in GW. All the
climatologists I've personally talked with would desperately love to be
shown wrong on GW or to find out that it really isn't true. And they would
give their eyeteeth to be able to be the ones to show that it's wrong. They
don't care about defending any status quo. They do get upset--and sometimes
overreact-- about the constant misunderstanding and misrepresentation from
amateurs (meaning those not actively publishing in the relevant professional
journals) who continue to hype arguments that have not passed muster in
scientific methodology.

  Remember that Smolin is talking about a theory without data (for which his
own theory is the leading contender!) that has captivated the imagination of
many theorists and siphoned off a disproportionate share of research
funding. Mapping that over to Velikovsky or YEC or GW doesn't work very
well.

  Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 14 09:59:30 2008