More importantly science isn’t afraid to admit when it’s wrong and change its working theories and models to fit all available data. Being wrong is just as if not more important to science.
Absolutely not, science has a long history of ignoring and laughing at many new theories. Many of them were later found out to be true, sure, but it’s not like religion doesn’t change, reinterpret itself etc. along with the changing times.
All the while nowadays pendulum has swinged to the other side, and most of published papers are never peer-reviewed, as “science” working under a capitalist system must abide by its rules, and so quantity and shock value is more important than quality.
So while in theory “being wrong” sounds like something that would be useful for science in practice, no, it always was about being (or at least seeming) right.
(Established) scientists have a long history of ignoring new theories not science itself. But that’s because at the end of the day scientists are still human.
Science is not great at working on a very short time scales. But give it enough time so more evidence is gathered and possibly some stubborn influential people (that can’t accept a new theory) die and generally we get closer and closer to truth.
More importantly science isn’t afraid to admit when it’s wrong and change its working theories and models to fit all available data. Being wrong is just as if not more important to science.
Being wrong means that we now can be right again by changing our views!
And also that we can discover new shit after changing our views that will probably improve our lives.
Yeah, it’s a method - not an ideology
Exactly.
Absolutely not, science has a long history of ignoring and laughing at many new theories. Many of them were later found out to be true, sure, but it’s not like religion doesn’t change, reinterpret itself etc. along with the changing times.
All the while nowadays pendulum has swinged to the other side, and most of published papers are never peer-reviewed, as “science” working under a capitalist system must abide by its rules, and so quantity and shock value is more important than quality.
So while in theory “being wrong” sounds like something that would be useful for science in practice, no, it always was about being (or at least seeming) right.
(Established) scientists have a long history of ignoring new theories not science itself. But that’s because at the end of the day scientists are still human.
Science is not great at working on a very short time scales. But give it enough time so more evidence is gathered and possibly some stubborn influential people (that can’t accept a new theory) die and generally we get closer and closer to truth.