Numbers: Washita May 21, 2011 14:41:39 GMT -5
Post by bc on May 21, 2011 14:41:39 GMT -5
that's the difference between the scientific and the dogmatic approach.
The science goes like that:
1. Start with a model based on the preliminary knowledge of a subject.
2. Try to refine the quality of the data, especially by looking for data that might FALSIFY the model.
3. If the model proves to be incorrect, or not precise enough, build a new model that fits the the data better than the one before
4. Rinse and repeat.
(Very good example of this: Planetary motion/Theory of Gravity)
The dogma goes like that.
1. start with a model
2. Look for data that SUPPORTS the model
3. Ignore anything else, or shoehorn it into the model
(4. If all else fails, try character assassination of the most prominent advocates of models different from yours)
The scientific community is not immune to this, either. And I have seen distinguished Professors hurling abuse at each other in front of an audience a thousand strong
Especially geology comes to mind:
-Plate Tectonics (Nonsense, how can continents plow through oceans!)
Even AFTER the discovery of the magnetic pattern conclusively proving see-floor spreading, some faculties just buried their heads in the sand for a few years.
-Impact Craters or at least the acknowledgment that those could influence life on earth. (The Heavens are eternal!)
It took the discovery of the Yucatan crater, maybe even the Shoemaker-Levy 9 Jupiter impacts to finally cure that attitude.
More closely related to our subject, it looks increasingly likely that "Clovis First/Overkill" will go the way of the aforementioned examples.
The abolishment of the Dogma takes usually either the "dying out" of the "Old Guard", or one singular WHAM! discovery like in the examples above.
Sheesh, if you think our arguments are bitter, Google up Biblical archaeology on the internet. We look as if we are all members of the amen corner compared to those people.
It's a good thing we don't get into any religious, political, and racial arguments around here. There are no winners and only losers. I avoid them like the cholera.
Things are so bad you can't even discuss Hitler. They recently kicked a director out of Cannes because of his remarks about Hitler. I didn't see a problem with what he said except for the forum he was in and the audience. Germany had a great many WWII war veterans who were just doing their duty for their country and not the idealogues they have been lumped in with. Too me it was kind of a tragedy that they couldn't be proud of and display their veteran status without being stifled and awarded the stigma that went with Hitler and his idealogues. We have had the same problem with our Vietnam veterans who were treated with distaste for a long time because the anti-war public didn't like them. They didn't get the ticker tape parade they deserved.
bc (stepping off the soap box now)