Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Super_Silky t1_iqwysvk wrote

The science community can be just as dogmatic as any religious community.

18

EndoExo t1_iqxmjf8 wrote

The science community will radically change its views based on evidence, just like they did when later evidence for plate tectonics showed that continental drift was true, or when the evidence backed Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. I can't think of anything similar in religious dogma. Like, pretty much every scholar and archeologist in the world is in agreement that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, and that the things it describes are historically impossible, but you don't see the LDS Church accepting that evidence.

29

Necrosis_KoC t1_iqy3of6 wrote

Science generally has the ability to accept indisputable evidence and realize that "Holy shit, they really were right and we were wrong." Where religions in general have proven incapable of doing so over and over throughout history.

6

KypDurron t1_iqy0e54 wrote

Except that the scientific community's response was perfectly justified. Science is supposed to reject new ideas that are presented without support. The entire point of the scientific method is to take people's hypotheses and attempt to prove them wrong.

Wegener's proposed mechanism for continental drift was the rotation of the earth, and he estimated that the continents were moving at approximately 250cm per year.

Just because part of his idea (that the continents move) was right doesn't mean that his claim should have been accepted uncritically. Making extraordinary claims that just happen to be correct - without actually explaining anything about it, or presenting sufficient evidence - doesn't make you a genius. It just makes you lucky.

9

Super_Silky t1_iqy5bcs wrote

Kinda like how Gugliemo Marconi beat both Tesla and Edison to the invention of wireless telegraph tech specifically because he wasnt shackled by scientific dogma? His views on the "ether" have been soundly disproved but he got results even if his reasoning for it was deeply flawed. Its one thing to not be "accepted uncritically" but the issue is the massive ridicule being lobbed just because theories dont fit neatly into established and "accepted" paradigms.

−4

BarrelRoll1996 t1_iqzu03l wrote

Not sure why downvoted, at surface level his reasons were bunk but still got him a nobel prize.

0

Monochromatic_Kuma t1_iqxa5by wrote

r/science in a nutshell

1

I_am_Mog t1_ir04vcf wrote

“A professor with his bone can be almost as dangerous as a dog with his bone.” — G. K. Chesterton

*disclaimer, I’m not an evolution denier. I’m not convinced Chesterton was either. I think he just liked trolling scientists and philosophers sometimes.

0