Changes

[[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.  

Scientific controversy is the driving force of 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: