Korean Job Discussion Forums

[sundubuman]

Just wondering.....can scientists vote on a theory?

[mnhnhyouh]

There are a number of ways the the "community" affects how science is done. However, it should work out that as evidence accumulates against those theories that are widely supported, but wrong, it eventually breaks said theories.

A really good example is the history of the theory of tectonic plate movement. First postulated some time ago, it was battled over for decades, and was only accepted in the 70's (if my old memory serves, that is).

h

[ontheway]

Science is anarchy.

That is why it is so well organized and respected.



The only realy problem for scientific inquiry is when governments get involved.

[yoda]

Science is an oligarchy. Journals, institutions, and notable academics all represent bastions of power in deciding if a theory has merit. It`s certainly not one scientist, one vote.

[mindmetoo]

It's a bit like asking if an elephant is smooth. Sure. In part. There's a story about Einstein being asked by a reporter what he thought about a new book called something like 100 Scientists Explain Why Relativity is Wrong. To which Einstein noted "it only takes one". One vote in a democracy can't counter a 100 votes. No so in science.

Science is probably better compared to the free market. There are certainly democratic aspects. There are certainly small groups of unelected people with seeming undue influence (a corporation is not democratic). Everyone works at times individually, together, people are competitive, people cooperate, people cheat for personal gain.

Theories in science are not voted on. They gain credibility based on the evidence and the ability to win the mind share of scientists working in the field. New evidence can change a few minds or change a large number of minds.

[mnhnhyouh]

There an idea in science publication called the "citation classic".

In science there is not much more important in a scientists CV than their publication list. These are publications in peer reviewed journals, meaning they had to pass muster by the journals editor, and two or more other scientists. All the background and context in each of these papers is provided by other peer reviewed papers, and these context papers are all cited in the paper.

There are databases that allow you to find new papers that cite a paper you are reading. The database also allows one to find out how many times a paper has been cited by other papers. This allows one to determine how "important" a paper is. In a previous life I have been tasked to find out how often the papers written by job applicants were cited, to add more context to the raw list of their publications.

If a paper has been cited more than 400 times, it is called a citation classic. These citation classics have a large effect on their field, as they are required reading for all who wish to understand it. How papers become citation classics is a matter of discussion, and this discussion provides an insight into the culture of science, and how that culture can affect the development of the research agenda in a field.

There is a well written and short article on that here...

http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v12p030y1989.pdf

h

[n3ptne]

The problem with science (speaking of Physics, especially) is that for the last 100 years of so, very little has been proven, but theoretical, after theoretical, breakthrough has occurred.

I just, literally before posting this, read an article about how 50% of Einstein's theory of relativity has just been proven to be within 1% (http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/63241/Einstein_Was_Right_Space_And_Time_Bend).

Like someone said before, it doesn't take 100 Scientists to go against Einstein, it just takes one to find something unalienably wrong with his theory for it to be considered wrong.

So, in some ways, Science is a monarchy, with one scientist striking down theories with modern techniques and observations. In other ways it is a democracy, to some extent, with untested theories gaining or winning support in a sort of Congress.

Look at String Theory.

[mnhnhyouh]

[mindmetoo]

[Junior]

[jinju]

[mindmetoo]

[igotthisguitar]

New religion

What passes for "science" is in truth far closer to a massive institutional "conspiracy"

[mindmetoo]

[Novernae]