And the difference is that his idea worked.
The point was, how peer pressure often stymies new ideas and perspectives when something is put into place and no one wants to make a change to upset the status quo.
When ideas work science accepts them.
Sure (as a cult collective), when any group relies on democratic process, proof is sometimes like getting something thru a hazing process where if everyone is not to busy to listen, you just go thru a group of people who bash the crap out of everything to see if it withstands the pressure, or if you fit into their personality profile.
When there is no experimental evidence they look upon the idea with great caution.
Right the inherent prejudice thing you mentioned. It would be nice if science had a voice that spoke to having an open mind, rather than one that had to be pried open, because they justify their prejudice and condemnation as inherent and a survival instinct.
When there is contradictory evidence they downplay that idea.
Or in the way you present this article, if there is more interest in the evidence collected highlighting certain characteristics and outcomes, then any other is irrelevant if the goal to a purpose is achieved regardless of any collateral damage (like the approval of thalidomide).
That is one of the things the Sabine was getting to in her article. Maybe you should go and look at the whole of the article instead of just jumping on an idea that you don't agree with.
The whole of the article seems to want to highlight the idea of credibility. I addressed what I wanted to address in support of the idea that when you build a bridge with inferior supports, it's gonna look nice but collapse under pressure, weight and time.
And that is about enough of that. If somebody wants to discuss the overall ideas in the article I will be happy to respond.
Bill Gill
Right, overlook the details and focus on the person making the statement as the credible authority because she's got a degree.
