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. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
