Ophiolite said:
So, all you are saying Dixon, is that scientists are humans, prone to all the usual human failings.
I would say scientists are more like some religious zealots than an average human. Yes, believers do realize they have failings. However, in their mind, the act of belief cleanse them of all "sins", eventually
. Same with an average scientist. He may do worthless research all his life (and even sense that), he may be less than honest in his grant applications and papers, he may drive a lab like a Chinese sweatshop full of dispensable, no life/little future grad students and postdocs, he may do all kind of nasty, backstabbing sand box internal politics, etc., etc., etc. He may even feel bad about all that. However, the sheer act of doing those things while being employed as a "scientists" cleanse him of all sins. Cause, as we all know
, there is no futile/bad research and "one person's garbage is another's person's treasure". I would strongly argue against those premises, which are less and less true considering modern result publishing practices. However, most scientists would disagree with me on that.
In short, your criticism is a valid one against some scientists, but has bugger all to do with science.
How come, care elaborate? However, one of the goal of science in the modern corporate world is to be a tool of social legimization. A tool expressing the same thought in various ways: " the system (scientifical establishment in particular) is fundamentally the best we can get in the imperfect world, it's all about individual and "personal responsibility", etc., all abberations are not because of the system but because of an individual. Again, science and religion serve to corporate masters together by redirecting anger from the system (and its owners) to an individual.
If I may anticipate claims that I am adopting the "bloated holier-than-thou" attitude you described: yes, I am, but it stems from my natural superiority not to my scientific training.
Whatever makes you happy
. If it's holier than though stance, so be it.
If you want to have a serious discussion, rather than spout drivel, perhaps you would care to cite reliable sources for any of your claims.
Scientists without sources is like a hooker without lipstick. Personally, I am more interested to hear personal thoughts and drivel without references. I'll sort them out somehow. After all, we are old enough to fill our memory "matrix" with lots of stuff by now. And yes, we are still humans with our experiences, knowledge, thoughts, which could be interesting by itself. We are not "expert systems" yet.
