Kasz216 on 22 April 2008
| The_vagabond7 said: Science is resistant to change once it's decided something is right because there is a huge pile of evidence saying something is right, and until something else destroys that evidence or has an even bigger pile of evidence in it's favor, there is good reason not to change. I think it was Richard Dawkins that said "all scientists want to disprove accepted theory in order to make a name for themself". If somebody could actually disprove evolution, he would be a god (no pun intended). If somebody, or some group was capable of that, they would do it and then flaunt their evidence for the entire world to see. Science isn't resistant to change so much as it is skeptical of new or unproven ideas...which is what makes science, science. But I'm just ranting. |
Every scientist wants to disprove an accepted theory, but very very few want someone else to disprove it.
Often times making scientists very ressistant to change even when there is plenty of proof that disproves the norm... which in many cases doesn't even have much proof. You can see a lot of this in the studying of the universe.
It's more then just needing proof. You can often have proof and shout it directly at people and they won't listen.
It's also really prevelant in social sciences... even more so because while you can prove something you can't do it as neatly. You can have statistics on your side everytime you run it and others do, yet the majority will cling to "common" sense and take bribes to make halfasses studies.
