RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Fox News vs. NPR (was "MoveOn.org")

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Jonathan King wrote:

> > The sciences have their own little members only areas. Express logical
> > well researched evidence that contradicts a long held assumption and
> > you are out on your can, so you better keep in line.
>
> Bull.  Actually, let me state that more elegantly: the trailblazers in
> most sciences only got where they were by doing exactly what you suggest
> nobody does.

A novel idea is often greeted with ridicule.  Two examples:  Barbara
McClintock on transposons (she said that genes can move between
chromosomes - heresy!), and Lynn Margolis on mitochondria and chloroplasts
(she said that they were formerly free-standing organisms that had been
incorporated into larger cells - more heresy!).  Their ideas were at first
considered laughable.  Being female probably didn't help.  Now their ideas
are completely accepted.  Sometimes you have to stick with it and wait for
people to warm up.  If your idea is radically different than what is in
place, someone in power will strongly disagree with you because you're
saying he is wrong.  Most radically different new ideas are wrong, so
maybe harsh criticism is usually appropriate.

I think scientists should be more accepting than they are.  I do agree
with Jon, to a point.  Good data will not be ignored.  It's speculation
without data that will make you a laughing stock (even when you're right).

In fact, some have claimed that the very top journals like Science and
Nature go a little too far at times to accomodate new ideas.  Example:
Nature published Benveniste's crazy paper on homeopathy.  Benveniste had
data, but it was collected rather poorly.  A second group of researchers
was allowed to publish a paper to accompany Benveniste's paper in the same
issue of the journal (an unusual step).

Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion