@ringo

Interesting the authors were medical doctors!

Those guys had knowledge whereas most of our medical doctors today are just really good at memorising algorithms after somehow skating by through organic chemistry and stats for beginners.

@pamby1
What do you mean?
We don't know everything and it is still possible to do ones job correctly with all the proper knowledge required.
@Andre @ringo

@rastinza @Andre @ringo I just mean that it's my impression that some scientists today are not open to new information & just about stroke out if someone's opinion deviates from what a
"consensus of scientists" says is fact. As if democracy, not the scientific method, determines facts.

@pamby1
The scientific method is, in fact, based on consensus.
While a black swan observation does indicate that the theory that all swans are white might be wrong, the single observation is not enough to disprove an affirmed and working theory.
@Andre @ringo

@rastinza @pamby1 @ringo

"The scientific method is, in fact, based on consensus."

I disagree strongly on this.

"While a black swan observation does indicate that the theory that all swans are white might be wrong, the single observation is not enough to disprove an affirmed and working theory."

A single observation that contradicts many to the contrary requires confirmation, but a single confirmed observation can easily destroy a theory.

@Andre
I'll explain briefly: all theories have problems, and this is known from the beginning. Identifying one single problem with the theory doesn't take down the theory, it just identifies one point of weakness.
Moreover, the observations must of course be confirmed through repeated observations.

The existing theory doesn't get destroyed as soon as an opposing observation is done, because that would throw away a perfectly good and working theory.
The theory gets replaced when a new one gets formulated, and the new one can also account for that observation which couldn't previously be explained.

The new theory gets approved through consensus, since there is no objective measure of theory superiority.
@pamby1 @ringo

@rastinza @Andre @ringo Is the new theory "tested" by everyone or do others read it then just say" yeah that makes sense" & then the theory is accepted?

Follow

@pamby1
Depends on the scale and importance; generally new theories become accepted after being in use for a long while.
Thus: one guy might need this new theory for something in particular for which the old one doesn't work and starts using it.
If the theory works he will talk about it and eventually other people will start using it.
After some time everyone in the field will know the new theory, and commonly refer to it.
At this point this new theory will start being deemed accepted.

Let's say a theory has been accepted more or less when someone uses it and doesn't need to cite the source because it's obvious to everyone in the field what he's talking about.
@Andre @ringo

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.