Scientist retract 50 year old paper

[pattersb]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/science/25jacobson.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
"It is not unusual for scientists to publish papers and, if they discover evidence that challenges them, to announce they were wrong. The idea that all scientific knowledge is provisional, able to be challenged and overturned, is one thing that separates matters of science from matters of faith.

So Dr. Jacobson’s retraction is in “the noblest tradition of science,” Rosalind Reid, editor of American Scientist, wrote in its November-December issue, which has Dr. Jacobson’s letter.

His letter shows, Ms. Reid wrote, “the distinction between a scientist who cannot let error stand, no matter the embarrassment of public correction,” and people who “cling to dogma.”"

kind of funny ...... the admission that a "scientist" could be wrong.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from pattersb:

kind of funny ...... the admission that a "scientist" could be wrong.

This statement betrays the utmost ignorance. The entire history of science is a history of scientists being proven wrong and admitting it. Einstein proved Newton wrong with relativity. Big Bang proved Einstein wrong. Every scientist tries to prove that the previous theory is wrong. That's how progress is made and new discoveries are found.

However, no real scientist is willing to give in to ignorance.

 

[pattersb]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

This statement betrays the utmost ignorance. The entire history of science is a history of scientists being proven wrong and admitting it. Einstein proved Newton wrong with relativity. Big Bang proved Einstein wrong. Every scientist tries to prove that the previous theory is wrong. That's how progress is made and new discoveries are found.

However, no real scientist is willing to give in to ignorance.

so, it's folly to have faith in anything?

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from pattersb:

so, it's folly to have faith in anything?

All generalizations are false.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from pattersb:

so, it's folly to have faith in anything?

The use of the word 'faith' in this sentence is misleading (no surprise coming from one of the true believers). Faith in the sense that it is relevant to this diccussion is the belief in something that cannot be proved or disproved, like a belief in a Creator God.

Faith for our purposes here is

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Faith is a specific kind of belief.

We, the men of reason, have a belief of another kind, a belief in the value of rational inquiry and the quest for the truth. We do not advocate faith in ghosts and goblins as a panacea for the fear of death.

When a Mom says to a wayward son "I have faith in you" it isn't in this sense that the word is being used.

Any other questions?

 

[heidegger]

Quote from traderNik:

The use of the word 'faith' in this sentence is misleading (no surprise coming from one of the true believers). Faith in the sense that it is relevant to this diccussion is the belief in something that cannot be proved or disproved, like a belief in a Creator God.

Faith for our purposes here is

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Faith is a specific kind of belief.

We, the men of reason, have a belief of another kind, a belief in the value of rational inquiry and the quest for the truth. We do not advocate faith in ghosts and goblins as a panacea for the fear of death.

When a Mom says to a wayward son "I have faith in you" it isn't in this sense that the word is being used.

Any other questions?

I have a question:

Is the only truth that is 'the truth' that truth that is accessible through 'logical proof or material evidence'?

 

[heidegger]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

This statement betrays the utmost ignorance. The entire history of science is a history of scientists being proven wrong and admitting it. Einstein proved Newton wrong with relativity. Big Bang proved Einstein wrong. Every scientist tries to prove that the previous theory is wrong. That's how progress is made and new discoveries are found.

However, no real scientist is willing to give in to ignorance.

Not quite. The next generation scientitst develops a theory relevant to an expanded context but doesn't necessarily prove his pedecessors wrong. Archemedes, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein all contributed ideas that are still relevant today.

 

[stu]

Quote from heidegger:

I have a question:

Is the only truth that is 'the truth' that truth that is accessible through 'logical proof or material evidence'?

I have a response:

Yes.
(and it's how you get to have a question in the first place )

 

[heidegger]

Quote from stu:

I have a response:

Yes.
(and it's how you get to have a question in the first place )

You are aware that you are hungry; you say to yourself "I am aware that I am hungry." . If your awareness was not arrived at through either logic or material observation is your awareness not an entity that is a member of the set of all entities that exist at that moment and your statement not a member of the set of all truthful statements?

 

[stu]

Quote from heidegger:

You are aware that you are hungry; you say to yourself "I am aware that I am hungry." . If your awareness was not arrived at through either logic or material observation is your awareness not an entity that is a member of the set of all entities that exist at that moment and your statement not a member of the set of all truthful statements?

sorry, you've lost me there..

You’re continuing to describe ideas about " truth that is 'the truth' " , - but only by means which would make truth - "accessible through logical proof or material evidence".

I notice you (anyone) can only advocate that might not be so, by practicing the contrary.