If science doesn’t accept new ideas, it cannot progress at all!

1. Has science become rigid like religion?

   Did you know that each time we send our research papers for peer-reviewing, or present our papers in conferences and seminars we have to face detailed analyses and questions that make us think, re-think, and make course corrections most of the time - if we are not right in our approach?

   Does that sound like ‘being rigid’?

   

   Image source: iStock

   But still I know why you used these words. Sometime back I wrote an article, “Can you challenge science?” (1) I am quoting a part of it here:

   Can you Challenge science?

   Yes, you can. Science encourages a healthy debate. Scientists need to be challenged continuously by different viewpoints so they can integrate them into the development of knowledge and technologies.

   Science considers everything brought before it. But to convince science it takes a lot more than mere words and emotional arguments. Just opinions don't count in science. It demands data proof. If you provide one it gives a lot of ground to your theory and argument. In that way science is not rigid. Usually scientific theories are challenged by the people in the field of science themselves if they find inadequate proof or new data not supporting the earlier ones. This challenge by experts in the field is important for science to progress in a systematic way.

   However, in recent times, science is being challenged not only by scientists , but also by religious fundamentalists, devout religious followers, industry, people in politics, some educationists, activists and other vested interests who don't have any knowledge regarding science and by using dubious methods. This, I feel, is a dangerous trend.

   Anybody can challenge the big 'S' but using only scientific methods. When asked to do this people are cooking up data, making strange claims and propagating pseudo-science. Even people of science are falling prey to these pseudo-scientific methods.

   The problem is not that science is being challenged, it is what it is being challenged with. And of course how it is challenged. If logical questions are being posed, it is appropriate. If the challenge comes from restating ancient faith-based fables it is not appropriate, both from a scientific and separation-of-religion-and-state perspective. Controversy and the various arguments for and against should be debated in a healthy atmosphere. To push religious, commercial and political agendas in order to dumb down people who might otherwise benefit from proper science training is deplorable and should be condemned as this makes people hopelessly out of touch with reality. This kind of backward progress is what brought about the crusades and the dark ages that followed. It might help those who want to exploit the public with their agendas. Science being challenged by scientists is the essence of science. Science being challenged by public school teachers with an agenda, by people with biased views, by people who follow religion fearing that science might dislodge age old dogmas, by industrialists who fear that they might not be able to proceed with their polluting ways, by politicians who play vote bank politics to win elections is the essence of stupidity.

   If the challenge only permits to help people understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught and to encourage them to respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues which include evolution, global warming, etc., so as to develop critical thinking skills, science embraces such a healthy debate.

   The heart of science is skepticism. No, of course you should not accept any part of science on faith! On the other hand, it takes a great deal of work to convince yourself that some "law" of science is true or not if you are a layman, so in the meantime, accepting the facts given by the "experts" is a reasonable fall-back. The trick, of course, is to pick the right experts.

   While doing this, when faced with facts they dislike, some human beings insist on killing the messenger and denouncing his message out of hand. This hatred towards science is not a healthy trend.

   Yes, ask science questions but the ones that make at least some sense.
   Challenge, but only rationally.
   Search, but only in the right places.

   Criticize, but only in an unbiased way.

   Biased analysis leads to destructive criticisms. Unbiased assay leads to constructive ones. Science welcomes the latter with an open mind. Need I say it doesn't even consider the first one?

   And you complain if we treat trash as trash!

   2. NOT Accepting New Ideas?

   If science doesn’t accept new ideas, it cannot progress at all! The very fact that science is progressing is evidence enough that your assumption is not correct.

   But “New Ideas” should come in the form of scientific method, not in the form of opinions, beliefs, ideologies and all that rubbish people with ‘ancient minds’ want to promote without providing any genuine evidence (2).

   3. Worshipping long dead scientists?

   I never saw anybody in my scientific circles building temples and worshipping scientists.

   Science doesn’t endorse it in the first place

   Only people who promote earlier scientists are the media people and the ones that idolize them are common people. For us, the people of the scientific community, the person working next to us is as great as Einstein or Newton. We don’t grade them or think that they are Gods. Period.

   I think you don’t know anything about the working ways of science.

   Before making these allegations, you should think about evidence and provide it too. If you can’t, we treat this as rubbish and a troll question. Don’t waste our precious time with such silly statements.

   Thanks for understanding.

Footnotes:

1. Can you challenge science?
2. Some Qs people asked me on science and my replies to them - part 13...