Scientific Hypocrisy - A debate

[Existentialist1844]

Plain and simple: anything taken to the extreme is annoying! Personally, I try not to cling to any ideological system. Then again, I love science and I'm pretty much devoted to that. I guess I'm a hypocrite.

[AshtonBlack]

Plain and simple: anything taken to the extreme is annoying! Personally, I try not to cling to any ideological system. Then again, I love science and I'm pretty much devoted to that. I guess I'm a hypocrite.

I disagree. Science can change it's mind (excuse the blatant anthropomorphizing for a moment), if it's wrong on a subject it can and does change the hypothesis. Therefore by definition it's not a dogma.

(So you're not a hypocrite!)

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Plain and simple: anything taken to the extreme is annoying! Personally, I try not to cling to any ideological system. Then again, I love science and I'm pretty much devoted to that. I guess I'm a hypocrite.

Science itself is not an ideological system. The scientific method could perhaps be considered such - but as even that is subject to the scientific method, and thus open to new evidence and peer-reviewed theories, I find that hard to accept. Can anti-dogma be dogmatic? I would say no.

So I don't think you're a hypocrite either.

[Existentialist1844]

Hm, what if someone clings to a particular set of scientific ideas even though it's been proven wrong? Wouldn't that be a sign of hypocrisy?

[AshtonBlack]

Hm, what if someone clings to a particular set of scientific ideas even though it's been proven wrong? Wouldn't that be a sign of hypocrisy?

No, if by peer review and empirical evidence it shown to be wrong then it's not scientific now is it?

[CJ]

Hm, what if someone clings to a particular set of scientific ideas even though it's been proven wrong? Wouldn't that be a sign of hypocrisy?

If the scientist did not agree that the idea they hold had not been disproved then there would be no hypocracy, delusion maybe, but not hypocrisy, I don't think. If the scientist holding the debunked idea, knew it had been debunked but still supported it then I would say they were being hypocritical.

[Existentialist1844]

Hm, what if someone clings to a particular set of scientific ideas even though it's been proven wrong? Wouldn't that be a sign of hypocrisy?

No, if by peer review and empirical evidence it shown to be wrong then it's not scientific now is it?

Good point.

[Clinton Huxley]

Need some scientific hypocrisy? Please call The Templeton Foundation.....

[Beelzebub2]

Hm, what if someone clings to a particular set of scientific ideas even though it's been proven wrong? Wouldn't that be a sign of hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy means professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one doesn't hold or possess, so as long as you're not pretending to cling to any particular set of ideas even though they have been proven wrong, you're only being deluded.

[Hermit]

Hm, what if someone clings to a particular set of scientific ideas even though it's been proven wrong? Wouldn't that be a sign of hypocrisy?

In most cases it's a sign that a scientist (say, Einstein) who has become an expert and perhaps was a pioneer in some scientific field (say, theories of special and general relativity), and become so entrenched in the relevant paradigms that they find it impossible to accommodate new ones (say, quantum mechanics) proposed by newcomers (say, Niels Bohr), and even though they cannot argue against that shift, feel compelled to dismiss it with a hand waving gesture (say, "God doesn't play dice").

Yes, I know that quantum mechanics does not exactly disprove the theory of relativity, but I hope you get the general drift: Old dogs and new tricks kind of thing.

[lordpasternack]

[AshtonBlack]

Hm, what if someone clings to a particular set of scientific ideas even though it's been proven wrong? Wouldn't that be a sign of hypocrisy?

In most cases it's a sign that a scientist (say, Einstein) who has become an expert and perhaps was a pioneer in some scientific field (say, theories of special and general relativity), and become so entrenched in the relevant paradigms that they find it impossible to accommodate new ones (say, quantum mechanics) proposed by newcomers (say, Niels Bohr), and even though they cannot argue against that shift, feel compelled to dismiss it with a hand waving gesture (say, "God doesn't play dice").

Yes, I know that quantum mechanics does not exactly disprove the theory of relativity, but I hope you get the general drift: Old dogs and new tricks kind of thing.

Interestingly, he published the EPR paradox in 1935, which was his attempt to show quantum mechanics was incomplete, and first postulated non locality of particles (Now known as "entanglement".), so even when he was wrong, he was right.


edit: for crappy English.

[Existentialist1844]

Hm, what if someone clings to a particular set of scientific ideas even though it's been proven wrong? Wouldn't that be a sign of hypocrisy?

In most cases it's a sign that a scientist (say, Einstein) who has become an expert and perhaps was a pioneer in some scientific field (say, theories of special and general relativity), and become so entrenched in the relevant paradigms that they find it impossible to accommodate new ones (say, quantum mechanics) proposed by newcomers (say, Niels Bohr), and even though they cannot argue against that shift, feel compelled to dismiss it with a hand waving gesture (say, "God doesn't play dice").

Yes, I know that quantum mechanics does not exactly disprove the theory of relativity, but I hope you get the general drift: Old dogs and new tricks kind of thing.

Your statement explains exactly what I wanted to say, you just said it better.

[Pappa]

Hm, what if someone clings to a particular set of scientific ideas even though it's been proven wrong? Wouldn't that be a sign of hypocrisy?

In most cases it's a sign that a scientist (say, Einstein) who has become an expert and perhaps was a pioneer in some scientific field (say, theories of special and general relativity), and become so entrenched in the relevant paradigms that they find it impossible to accommodate new ones (say, quantum mechanics) proposed by newcomers (say, Niels Bohr), and even though they cannot argue against that shift, feel compelled to dismiss it with a hand waving gesture (say, "God doesn't play dice").

Yes, I know that quantum mechanics does not exactly disprove the theory of relativity, but I hope you get the general drift: Old dogs and new tricks kind of thing.

Your statement explains exactly what I wanted to say, you just said it better.

Seraph has a knack for doing that.

[Existentialist1844]

Hm, what if someone clings to a particular set of scientific ideas even though it's been proven wrong? Wouldn't that be a sign of hypocrisy?

In most cases it's a sign that a scientist (say, Einstein) who has become an expert and perhaps was a pioneer in some scientific field (say, theories of special and general relativity), and become so entrenched in the relevant paradigms that they find it impossible to accommodate new ones (say, quantum mechanics) proposed by newcomers (say, Niels Bohr), and even though they cannot argue against that shift, feel compelled to dismiss it with a hand waving gesture (say, "God doesn't play dice").

Yes, I know that quantum mechanics does not exactly disprove the theory of relativity, but I hope you get the general drift: Old dogs and new tricks kind of thing.

Your statement explains exactly what I wanted to say, you just said it better.

Seraph has a knack for doing that.

He is a dreamboat.

Slight derail, sorry.