Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaveMatrix
Pan, I admire your tenacity but you're only preaching to the choir, much as I've done. Some people simply cant accept anything till a significant group of scientists tells them its alright to do so. That way they wont be stuck out on limb, labeled as 'different' or 'free thinking', they're safe inside their secure little wombs of normalcy. Its a matter of the group mentality, in which individuals don't exist, just the collective consciousness of current acceptable scientific reasoning. Its just safer that way for many. Science will advance into the future, and many of 'todays' scientific reasonings will be scoffed at, much as earlier reasonings are today. Its a predictable cyclical course, which many refuse to acknowledge.
|
If this is really what you think, then I understand where you are coming from better. I can see how you would be skeptical of the scientific process because this post evidences a complete lack of understanding of what science is, how it works, and why people might find it to be a good way of looking at the world.
In fact, 1 person (scientist or not) showing some evidence which is verifiable, repeatable, and more substantial than some anecdotes would be good for me. Following that, a reasonable, testable hypothesis about the mechanism of action would be convincing. "A group" of scientists isn't required. Just some clearly articulated ideas that are based on real, verifiable, repeatable observations.
It's not about normalcy or group think at all. In fact, one of my favorite things about science and scientists is the willingness to throw all of our previous models and assumptions out the window as soon as there is a better model or observation - no matter who comes up with those things. This happens ALL the time.