Knowledge

[Sara S]

Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority. -Thomas Henry Huxley, biologist (1825-1895)

[Clancy]

Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority. -Thomas Henry Huxley, biologist (1825-1895)

With all due respect to the great Thomas Huxley, I don't think that's applicable today.

Yes, Galileo paid a high price for his then revolutionary theories, but for every Galileo from centuries ago we now have thousands of pseudo-scientists claiming science doesn't accept their pet theory just because it doesn't fit the current model. They lack a fundamental understanding of the way science works. Science is just a tool, a method - not an authority. That it works so well is a wonder.

Einstein created a scientific, political and social revolution simply by publishing a paper that was only several pages in length.
https://elvis.rowan.edu/~hartley/Courses/ComputersAndSociety/Articles/2005/2102-7337_3-5727092.html
His theory held up under scientific scrutiny. Many new theories don't. Big advances in science continue to happen the same way.

"Science does not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone tells us what to say." -- G.K. Chesterton

[LenInSebastopol]

The funny thing about science is that it is one of the few disciplines that stands to correct itself. So in a small sense the original poster did make a point, albeit dramatic. And in so many cases that are discussed now-a-days there really is no such thing as "science" but emotional, political, and other agendas & conclusions based on things other than "science". Almost to the point that there really IS no science one may discuss; only implications of research, which again, stands to be corrected due to more questions being raised.
And I enjoy your Chesterton quote.

[Sara S]

I was thinking that for a scientist with a new theory, maybe, the advance it would represent almost certainly would challenge the "authority" of whatever theory is currently accepted on that topic.




The funny thing about science is that it is one of the few disciplines that stands to correct itself. So in a small sense the original poster did make a point, albeit dramatic. And in so many cases that are discussed now-a-days there really is no such thing as "science" but emotional, political, and other agendas & conclusions based on things other than "science". Almost to the point that there really IS no science one may discuss; only implications of research, which again, stands to be corrected due to more questions being raised.
And I enjoy your Chesterton quote.

[LenInSebastopol]

I was thinking that for a scientist with a new theory, maybe, the advance it would represent almost certainly would challenge the "authority" of whatever theory is currently accepted on that topic.

You make a good point but often the authority is a consensus of statistically based data after much peer review. The "authority", for example in Intelligent Design are all the schools, teachers, researchers, etc. and that whole scene was shaken up with the posit of I.D; and it turned out to be good, as you point out, that the authorities need a good shaking out of the doldrums on occasion. That shifted the whole paradigm. Hooray for you!

[Clancy]

I was thinking that for a scientist with a new theory, maybe, the advance it would represent almost certainly would challenge the "authority" of whatever theory is currently accepted on that topic.

Theories are not authoritarian. Is the theory of gravity going to be miffed if you make some new discovery about the nature of gravity?

[LenInSebastopol]

Theories are not authoritarian. Is the theory of gravity going to be miffed if you make some new discovery about the nature of gravity?

Hopefully.

It IS one of the four that buggers some.