Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Does tad's chances of finding the plane affect its ability to take off?

There's a lot of black and white debate in this thread about dogma in science. Here is my take: it's grey.

I remember watching Dawkins's The God Delusion documentary, and in it he cites the case of a mathematics professor who's life's work revolves around some equation. One day, this young student knocks on his door, shows him is calculations that prove the professor wrong, and the professor simply thanks the student for pointing out that his life's work is wrong. I call this the ideal scientist. It's the way we want scientists to behave. And many do, maybe even most. But not all. Just having watched the new versions of Cosmos and the stories therein show the fragility of human nature that can come into conflict from scientific ideals. Chances are the student would have encountered other reactions from scorn, attempt at destroying the evidence, discrediting the student, buying silence, hell, even murder. We forget that scientists are also human, and subject to human failings, such as herd mentality and dogma.

The classic case of dogma in science for me, is also one used to describe paradigm shifts: continental drift. You see, evidence supporting continental drift had been around since around 1900, but was always rejected by the majority of the geological scientific community. It wasn't until the middle of the 20th century that geologists finally accepted (and many of them grudgingly) that this does exist. Paradigm shift in science not only revolves around evidence, although that is a prerequisite, but more importantly, it revolves around acceptance of the evidence, which often takes time, even a lot of time. It is also often said that the best way for new ideas in science to take hold is to wait for the old professors to die.

And the way it works now, is that the more prestigious, the more careers at stake, and most importantly, the more money at stake behind a theory, the more difficult it is for that theory to be challenged. It's not to say that it is impossible. I'm convinced that at some point even the most prestigious theories will be relegated to the dustbinIFevidence can be found to support alternative theories. However, it will not be as instantaneous as the mathematician's example above, and that is due to the inertia of dogma, that is fuelled by things such as personal and academic pride, and, more importantly, money (or the fear of losing it). And any such theory will be bashed, beaten and ridiculed before being accepted (as with the case of continental drift, and many others).

Now, having said all that, I would like to make a caseforthis inertia. It does serve a purpose. You see, we may laugh at old theories of things such as the flat world, geo-centricism, and god knows what else, and make fun of Issac Newton for his alchemy and all that, but we forget the importance that these were all stepping stones towards where we are now. Our greatest failing is in believing that our current understanding of the world is at an end point. It is not. They are all stepping stones too. But before we can take a step towards the next stone, we need to stop for a while on the one we're on, get our balance, and make sure our footing is secure before venturing forth. Going to quickly would end up with us either going the wrong way (and having to backpeddle), or worse, falling into the pond (and even getting us as a species killed).

So my argument is, is that it is naive to believe that there is not dogma in science, for the simple reason that all scientists are human, and susceptible to human failings, although the ideal of science means that many (even most) try to overcome those failings. Dogma, and it's subsequent inertia, is good for the system. But at the same time, it is not impregnable, and new theories will always come to light if there is evidence for them, though it may take longer than many would hope for.