[extropy-chat] Science and Fools

[Dirk Bruere]

Robin Hanson wrote:

> At 03:11 PM 3/15/2005, Hal Finney wrote:
>
>> In the end, I have to weigh the probabilities.  Which is more likely:
>> that conventional science has made such a fundamental error, or that the
>> community of "lifter" hobbyists is fooling themselves?  And I have to
>> fall back on the position I have advocated before, which is to respect
>> the conventional wisdom of science.  Yes, scientists make mistakes.
>> But so do non-scientists!  And science has mechanisms for 
>> self-correction
>> which simply aren't present in the hobbyist and enthusiast community.
>
>
> I'm not at all sure "science" has better mechanisms than hobbyists.
> Not sure "science" has much of a referent at all really.  "Established
> academic experts" have mechanisms, ok, but not clear they are better.
> Rather, I'd just emphasize the "established" descriptor.  If most 
> people who
> are widely acknowledged to be very expert on closely related topics 
> reject a
> position, well then all else equal that position is probably wrong.
>
> But then comes the hard part: how can you ever justify disagreeing with
> most established experts on a topic?  Like cryonics for example.  Of 
> course
> established experts make mistakes, but how can you ever know you've 
> found one?

IMO the only real justification is experiment.
Theories are ten a penny and every crank has one.
Naudin et al are probably wrong, but its worth taking a closer look 
simply because they are claiming experimental justification.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org