Block, SkipCaptcha
195
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + +
the role of controversy in advancing science
[[Politicized science]] often takes the viewpoint that there is a [[scientific consensus]] on an issue and use this stance as a justification for suppressing [[scientific debate]]. In extreme cases, advocates for one point of view have engaged in [[character assassination]].
[[Politicized science]] often takes the viewpoint that there is a [[scientific consensus]] on an issue and use this stance as a justification for suppressing [[scientific debate]]. In extreme cases, advocates for one point of view have engaged in [[character assassination]].
Scientific controversy can be a driving force for scientific advancement. Historically, paradigm-shifting scientific "breakthroughs" have almost by definition been scientific controversies. The existing majority view becomes a [[ruling paradigm]] and the fact of controversy is often denied, with dissenting views ridiculed and relegated to the fringe. In successful cases the fringe becomes a controversy and the controversy establishes a new majority view.
[[Stephen C. Meyer]] wrote:
[[Stephen C. Meyer]] wrote: