Science should be democratic, in that it should be open to scientific contributions from anyone, and its stylistic conventions can be decided democratically.
But science isn't a democracy. It is has different means of determining right and wrong.
Science should be democratic, in that it should be open to scientific contributions from anyone, and its stylistic conventions can be decided democratically.
But science isn't a democracy. It is has different means of determining right and wrong.
6 comments:
what was the arguments made by that book 100 against GR?
idk You'll have to go find it and read it.
okay
were any eminent physicist ?
Almost certainly.
Relevant: https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/11/100-authors-against-einstein-a-look-in-the-rearview-mirror/
My understanding is the Nazis used to hold lectures at Humboldt denouncing Einstein's "Jewish Science" too, which Einstein showed up to heckle at least once. Or so I was told as a tourist at Humboldt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Lenard
Which is why any talk of 'the scientific consensus' should set off alarm bells. Any particular hypothesis may be broadly held to be correct, but it's not correct because it's broadly held - it's broadly held because it's (presumably) been demonstrated to be correct beyond a reasonable doubt.
Post a Comment