Re: Are There Any Actual Physicists/Scientists Here?

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:27:00 -0400, Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 12:40:36 +1000, Timo Nieminen <timo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Paul Stowe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> But, science & its method is self correcting and
>>>> is not threaten by ideas, period.
>>>
>>>Not even by dogmatism?
>>
>>
>> Dogmatism, like politics, is a corruption in the scientific
>> process. But I'd have to say no, it slows but will not stop
>> the scientific process. Planck got that part right...
>>
>> Paul Stowe
>
> Dogmatism is more general and insidious than that- Dogmatism
> not only given special status to certain ideas, it also
> influences what areas of scientific inquiry are investigated:

No disagreement. Especially if one controls all funding.

> consider the course content of the majority of undergraduate
> Physics curricula.

There are other, independent avenues for study. The greatest
gift that can be provided to a student is teaching them HOW
to find and categorize any desired information. NOT! any specific
topic. With the first gift, and with guidance (in the form of
supportive mentoring) the student can excel by finding their OWN
voice.

> All students are to learn how to solve a set number of physical
> or abstract systems, and those specific systems have remained
> unchanged in more than 60 years.

Ah, but what is the motivation?

> It is clear that physics curricula has not kept pace with new
> research. New concepts are not being introduced, or introduced
> slowly, in fits and starts.

There is danger in uncontrolled dissemination of certain knowledge.
In a very real sense, knowledge IS power (in the political and economic
sense).

> And in terms of funded research: who funds it? Peer review drives
> the process. How to peers evaluate proposals? Based on what they
> (the reviewers) consider to be useful and do-able. How do they
> come to their conclusions? Based on their subjective point of view:
> to be sure, multiple reviwers and checks-and-balances exist, but
> the point is the same: research gets funded if similar research
> has been funded before.

IMO peer review as practiced today is anti-science. But, to devise
a system of checks as well as balance would be daunting.

Paul Stowe
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are There Any Actual Physicists/Scientists Here?
    ... >On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Paul Stowe wrote: ... >> Dogmatism, like politics, is a corruption in the scientific ... But, a Planck observed, people die, their opposition dies with them. ... prestige in pre-existing dogmas. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Are There Any Actual Physicists/Scientists Here?
    ... >On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Paul Stowe wrote: ... Dogmatism, like politics, is a corruption in the scientific ... the scientific process. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Are There Any Actual Physicists/Scientists Here?
    ... On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Paul Stowe wrote: ... > Dogmatism, like politics, is a corruption in the scientific ... > the scientific process. ... science threatened by Lysenkoism, Khmer Rouge anti-educationism, etc? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: [OT] US congressman who codes in assembly
    ... the incessant idiocy, politics, or irrationality around him, he could do ... well, programmers, I would think, would be naturally fitted to the world of ... judgemental dogmatism, and tends to accuse everyone else of being ... "What are the odds that your birthday would be in the last week of the ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Are There Any Actual Physicists/Scientists Here?
    ... >> Dogmatism, like politics, is a corruption in the scientific ... Let's hear it for female scientists! ...
    (sci.physics)