BVL wrote:-
Quote:
|
This is why scientists talk to one another and if they all had Clippo's attitude they would never get anywhere.
|
I’m trying hard to not make this an insult BVL but I sense some naivety and a sense of ‘la vie en Rose’ here.
An extract from a recent Realclimate article :-
Quote:
|
Science, in contrast, is a deliberative, cooperative, yet still competitive enterprise, where each side is duty bound to fairly consider all arguments and data that bear on the matter at hand. This is not to say that scientific disputes are necessarily dispassionate or orderly. Indeed, I've seen near-fistfights break out over things like the Snowball Earth and the interpretation of Neoproterozoic carbon isotope excursions.
|
Quote:
|
In fact scientists are probing theories and conceptions all the time, trying to break them. The best way to become famous is to overturn established wisdom, so scientists look hard all the time for opportunities to do this.
|
Scientists with varying views DON’T ‘talk’ to each other much – although scientists with similar views probably do. Even with similar views, they are all motivated by self-esteem, looking for the main chance, and slug it out with each other over publications and conferences etc. All want that moment of victory, that accolade from peers of being right.
Yes, they all seek the truth – the truth as they think it is.
As in love & war, the ’winner gets all’
That is where progress comes from – the eventual dominance of one set of ideas over another.
Furthermore, it is not just in science. Almost in any walk of life, if you express an opinion which you can’t back up with convincing arguments, there will be someone itching to burst your bubble.
Now, in GW circles, a history of bad blood has grown up, in my view due to the ‘perversion’ of science by the likes of the Climate Coalition (Exxon). Spencer has been identified as a recipient of Exxon cash and is a self reported Creationist.
Is it small wonder that his views should be scrutinised & he should attract vituperation, having such a provenance?
In your specific case, I don’t know your age or circumstances (& I’ve no real desire to pry). However, my impression is that you are ‘young’ (define it how you will) & all I was suggesting to you was that if you take sides in an antagonistic debate, you are fair game to become an intellectual casualty – think with your brain, not with your guts.