Relative versus absolute dating techniques

Hey Scott, First, I think you're confusing your readers by calling it "top ten." Many may miss the fact this is an alphabetical list. My original intent was to debunk the claims of 1990s SCI.You've simply gone through the entries with names A-D. SKEPTIC newsgroup and others, whose members absolutely insisted that, other than the Galileo event, such problems Don't Exist In Science (since if they did, they'd be quite important, and obviously their textbooks would have presented the many instances! " Or, should we say that acceptance took nearly forever: typically ten years! :) If each vindication came after a few years, I very specifically DON'T pretend the ridicule never happened, nor do I dismiss it as easily-forgivable, as you seem to do.Instead ask how many crazy funding proposals from successful scientists have turned out to be genuinely worthless. Perhaps the number of crazy-yet-vindicated research projects is large enough that it's much higher than the number of genuinely stupid research projects.

Therefore all the victims of such ridicule-suppression should have no reason to complain?

Me, I insist that it's supposed to be zero years; that this ridicule-then-vindication is a symptom of a quite serious, (if suppressed and hidden) disease in modern science.

Beware, for many discoveries such as powered flight and drifting continents today only appear sane and acceptable because we have such powerful hindsight.

These same advancements were seen as obviously a bunch of disgusting lunatic garbage during the years they were first discovered.

It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." -Paul Johnson Notes: I constantly hear the above problem being dismissed; that the number of breakthroughs from crackpots is relatively tiny, or that "vindicated mavericks" are rare and exceptional. After all, the number of uneducated crazy people is enormous, but this has little impact on number of new ideas in professional science.

It's not honest to simply ask how many crazy ideas are actually crazy.

However, since the diamonds exist, we must distrust our first impressions.

Sometimes the "obvious" craziness turns out to be a genuine cutting-edge discovery.

In science, pursuing revolutionary advancements can be like searching for diamonds hidden in sewage.

It's a shame that the realms of questionable ideas contain "diamonds" of great value.

By definition, only the suppressed-vindicated breakthroughs can be detected.

Tags: , ,