1,066
edits
Changes
"Operational" v "Historical" science.
There seems to be a common fallacy that scientists are all about maintaining the status quo. But new discoveries are the driving force in science. New discoveries are what win Nobel prizes, and get big research grants, and get papers in prestigious journals. The peer review/paradigm system introduces a certain amount of inertia into the system which can be counterproductive (occasionally good research can be rejected initially) but in most instances helps to winnow out anomalous or wrong results. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 11:45, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
There seems to be a common fallacy that scientists are all about maintaining the status quo. But new discoveries are the driving force in science. New discoveries are what win Nobel prizes, and get big research grants, and get papers in prestigious journals. The peer review/paradigm system introduces a certain amount of inertia into the system which can be counterproductive (occasionally good research can be rejected initially) but in most instances helps to winnow out anomalous or wrong results. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 11:45, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
== "Operational" v "Historical" science. ==
My edit in this regard was reverted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Physical_science&diff=147270&oldid=147240]. The only people who make this distinction are creationists. Philosophers of science don't. You won't find this distinction discussed anywhere other than on creationist websites, and it doesn't show up in [[Karl Popper|Popper]], [[Thomas Kuhn|Kunn]], [[Imre Lakatos|Lakatos]], [[Willard Van Orman Quine|Quine]] or anyone other philsopher of note in the area. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:55, 7 May 2007 (EDT)