If there's anything I've learned from my studies of science and scientific history, it's that real scientists and egomaniacal idiots with lab coats are separated by three little words:  "I was wrong."  A real scientist, particularly a great one, will utter these three words many times throughout his career, while an idiot with a lab coat will not only never utter them, but will defend his failed hypotheses to his grave.

 

Peter Duesberg is an excellent example of this, if you know anything of his "discovery" of the retroviral oncogene.  The guy was in line for the Nobel Prize, when he spoiled the whole thing by insisting on choosing scientific integrity over personal ambition, and uttered those three little words.

 

I also have noticed what you have pointed out:  That great physicists are generally willing to admit when they are wrong, while those in the biomedical field act like Catholic church officials in defending their dogmas.  When confronted with contrary facts, in fact, they often hide behind the same argument that religious officials use:  "Not only are our detractors wrong, but their views are dangerous and if allowed to speak publicly about this, they will lead our ignorant lay parishioners to their doom."

 

For those who have never read Stephen Hawking's The Theory of Everything, I highly recommend that you pick up a copy.  It's an excellent read, but for the purpose of this discussion, it should be entered into evidence as Exhibit A.  It's basically an accounting of all of the times that Hawking proved himself wrong in his failed attempt to concoct a unified field theory.  For anyone who labors under the illusion that scientists are anything but fallible mortals, Hawking would set you straight about how science really works.

 

--- Gos

--- [email protected]

"Nobody here but us heretics..."