sucky sucky junkscience.com

[Charlie Bell]

On 19/04/2008, at 10:48 PM, Wayne Eddy wrote:
>
> I wouldn't have thought that challenging the current othodoxy is clear
> evidence that someone is not one of the good guys or that they are  
> doing
> wrong.

Depends how you do it. Examples where someone challenges the orthodoxy  
and is eventually proved correct are plenty (Look up plate tectonics,  
relativity, black holes, _Helicobacter pylori_, endosymbiosis,  
catastrophic impact causing mass extinctions, the age of the earth,  
evolution by natural selection, helicentricty...).

Where it goes wrong is where one challenges the "current orthodoxy" in  
the media, in lobby groups, by writing books and doing lecture tours  
instead of actually doing any work in a particular field. Particularly  
where you're challenging the orthodoxy in a field you don't actually  
know too well, like all the "scientists who doubt evolution" lists  
that get touted about - lists that include physicists, engineers,  
doctors, chemists but practically no working biologists...

One way is science, the other is crankery. And it's not always obvious  
straight away which is which, but it becomes clear in time, 'cause a  
scientist who's right about something new and revolutionary will plug  
away, and keep producing the results. Eventually, the results speak  
for themselves, as in the cases I mentioned above.

Charlie.