1,066
edits
Changes
restoring comment that was presumably removed by mistake + replying
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)
==To be taken seriously==
==To be taken seriously==
I do hope that our visitors from Wikipedia will not lower their editorial standards when they come over here. We are now and terribly understaffed. We have possibly ten good writers, while Wikipedia has thousands. If there are any good writers who are knowledgeable about science, they can help us if that's what they want to do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I do hope that our visitors from Wikipedia will not lower their editorial standards when they come over here. We are now and terribly understaffed. We have possibly ten good writers, while Wikipedia has thousands. If there are any good writers who are knowledgeable about science, they can help us if that's what they want to do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
: Ed, in that case the entire section should be removed since the source is by no means reliable. Again, if you think anyone does this, I challenge you to find this distinction in any work by any serious philosopher of science. You won't find it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:59, 7 May 2007 (EDT)