| Final-Fan said: I think that might be the most propaganda-laden account of scientific progress that I've ever read. I agree that some truly new and interesting discoveries on how the universe works have happened and will continue to happen, many of them thanks to new scientific paradigms that embrace chaotic principles more fully, but I disagree that there was any kind of willing concerted effort to shove this math and science under the rug. Question: What does that guy mean by "negentropy"? From your interpretation you make it sound like there is actual negative entropy going on, rather than a local (for certain definitions of "local") effect consistent with increased overall entropy.Is that true?? And if so, how big can this negentropic effect be? |
I disagree. From what I can tell most scientists in fact do go out of their way to hide and marginilize any data that conflicts with their theroeies.
This happened a lot in younger days when science wasn't a buisness, and does so even more now when sciene is a buisness and your grants or funding relies on your theory being right and you making progress down the road.
Small indicators are hidden instead of explored opon and much much time is wasted by many scientists.
It's not like it's a big conspiracy but I think the way we fund science now a days tends to have a very establishment stick with what we think we know aspect to it.
Of course this could just be my natural pessimism due to the fact that a lot of fields of study I am most familiar with tend to use faulty expirments and ignore or marginalize data all the time in order to prove some social ill is a problem of something said group wants banned or regulated so they can have more political clout.
Everyone wants to be that famous scientist who comes up with an amazing breakthrough, but nobody wants to be the guy who follows up and tests something counter to his theory only to have all his funding pulled, possibly not make it far enough into his new theory and be forced to attempt to find work elsewhere.
Some others just don't want to admit they were wrong and hide data... since the discourse among competeting scientists now a days resembles that of internet posters... just with much more flowery talking. Neither side wants to admit they are wrong even when shown proof or near proofs.
