zoopy

Great example, Eliezer. 2 + 2 = 4. This is one of those rituals that scientists go through every time the analyze data. Do they sit down and prove 2 + 2 = 4? No, they don't. They stand on the shoulders of greater men (to use Newton's phrase I believe), and use their computers to move on. Requiring every working scientist to reexamine every assumption - is well, philosophical (which is fine) and uneconomical (which is less so).

I'm beginning to think that the blogger at hand doesn't understand science. Was there anything we could call science before peer review? Isn't science not only the repeatablility of the experiment but also the... (read more)

Why not let scientists believe whatever they want? Why worship the scientist as a perfect unbiased hero dredging against the sins of falseness? Seems too much to ask from a single human. And not very accurate: science is a social institution. It relies on convincing others that not only your interpretation of the data is correct but that your technique for getting the data is kosher and that you aren't outright making things up. There are checks and balances (even if fallible in the short-term) in science - but no scientist is an island of truth. That notion doesn't begin to make sense. There really wasn't much science until people wrote back... (read more)