Save Us from the Tyranny of 'Settled' Science

The American Thinker ^ | January 16, 2016 | John Horvat II

[Jim Noble]

When a conclusion is constantly verified,it is enshrined in what might be called "established" science

That's actually not how scientists (real ones) operate.

As soon as a "conclusion" is "constantly verified" to the point that it can be published in Nature, PNAS, Cell, or some other such journal, it comes under relentless attack.

The whole enterprise is one giant game of King of the Hill.

Of course, introduce government funding into the picture and the whole thing turns to shit in a hurry.

[RipSawyer]

Just to satisfy my curiosity, what is the speed of like in a vacuum? Is it higher than the speed of dislike in a windstorm?

[RipSawyer]

“...pick any conclusion, and then find (or define) the rationale to get there.”

To me it just seems like what Ayn Rand warned about.

[JoeFromSidney]

The red shift of distant galaxies,

Even that's not settled. See Halton Arp's book Seeing Red.

He shows that there are astronomical objects that are obviously physically connected but which have radically different "red shifts."

[Oztrich Boy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

• The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
• The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
• There are claims of great accuracy.
• Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
• Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
• The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

Sound familiar?

[Gene Eric]

Certainly.

The politics of science is nothing new unfortunately. Individuals have been slaughtered for it since the age of Babylon.