So you've never seen a scientist lose their job over daring to suggest that there is a connection between a paycheck and ones "belief" in science?
I've seen people of all kinds lose their jobs over throwing around false accusations.
But that wasn't the subject. The subject was that the size of a paycheck of a scientist will not be growing if that scientist does no original research, discovers nothing new and only upholds the status quo.
We only have to see what happens in the medical field when someone wants to upset their apple cart with a new discovery that proves that their former treatment options were actually harmful.....its often career suicide....a tough wall to tear down
Pharma is
applied science, a commercial enterprise. So it plays by different rules when it comes to job retention and promotion.
(The treatment of stomach ulcers was an example. Helicobacter was suggested as the culprit in many cases, and a short course of anti-biotics could cure it. He was almost laughed out of medicine....until it was proven to work.) Its hard to change scientific minds once something is entrenched. (Or dare I say indoctrinated?)
Yes, changing minds in science can be quite hard work. For good reason to.
Keywords in your quote:
until it was proven to work.
So before the evidence was revealed that demonstrated his claim, the claim wasn't accepted.
Then the evidence came in, and it was accepted.
Where is the problem?
What is your complaint? That science is hard work sometimes? That it's "annoying" that people require sufficient evidence to demonstrate their claims before the claims are accepted?
You feel like they should have accepted the claim, before there was sufficient evidence to accept it?
Do you honestly think that would benefit the scientific enterprise as a whole?
I think you are speaking about that obvious 'one-up-manship', where competing scientists might have grant money or Nobel Prizes in mind, along with accolades from the scientific community if they can do something that no one else has done....or discover things that no one else has discovered....so, what do you think they are going to do?
I'm speaking about in general.
Consider the names of all the famous scientists that practically EVERYBODY knows - even those who are pretty much scientifically illiterate.
Who never heared the names Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Gallilleo, Curie, Farraday, Hawking, Hubble...
WHY do people know these names? WHY are buildings, statues, villages,...erected in their honor / carrying their name? Is it because they upheld the status quo? Or is it because they turned their fields upside down by going against the flow and showing all their peers wrong?
The hallowed halls of science are littered with egos, eager to compete, but they would never venture outside the evolutionary boxing ring into which most branches of science must do their sparring
They will, the second sufficient evidence is presented that justifies doing so.
Until then, why would they?
All their competition is inside that ring and based on that first premise.
Because that's what the currently available evidence demands.
You can believe in science if you wish....
Science requires no "belief". Science is very evidence and results based.
We can for example
trust that atomic theory is quite accurate and that scientists thus have a relativity good understanding concerning how atoms work, because nukes explode.
.it is after all, the study of creation
Calling reality "creation" is a dishonest and unjustified statement not supported by evidence.
I'll allow the Creator to tell me what he did....in the order that he did it.
Just don't pretend as if that is a better and more rationally justified position then evidence based science is.
I believe he is way more believable than the story science is spinning.
Nobody in the sciences cares what you or anyone else "believes".
In science, they only care about what you can demonstrate with independently verifiable evidence.
This is why you won't succeed in shattering the consensus (based on evidence) with bare claims not based on evidence. It's also why the scientific community with
happily and
with excitement change the consensus the second your claims are supported by sufficient evidence.
LOL...I think you are rather naive about that.
Nope. As has become clear once again in this post, I'm right on the money.
YOUR VERY OWN EXAMPLE of medical science shows this.
A claim not in evidence isn't accepted.
Once sufficient evidence is presented, it is accepted.
What's the problem with that?
It seems to me to be a good thing that claims aren't accepted by default when they aren't sufficiently supported with testable evidence....
Oh yes....let's not forget 'who wants to be a 'nobody''.
There you have it.
Yes, there you have it.
Again: you know the names Newton and Einstein.
But you don't know the names of the physicists who did an experiment in 1975 which merely ended up confirming relativity for the bazillionth time. Neither are these people listed in the scientific hall of fame. Neither did they get any prizes for it.
Now if during that experiment, relativity were shown inadequate or even wrong... You WOULD know their names.
Because once again, in science, fame and glory is reserved for those who show their peers wrong. Not for those who simply uphold the status quo and merely confirm that which was already known or accepted.
Original research and new discoveries that can stick it to other competing scientists is nothing more than an ego trip.
So do we remember Newton and Einstein to satisfy their ego's, or do we remember them for the work they did?
You don't seem to understand that none of their research or discoveries will ever challenge the very foundations of evolutionary science
For the same reason that research and discoveries will never challenge a spherical earth in favor of a flat one.
This is what you don't comprehend and are unwilling to comprehend. Evolution is pretty much an established science. Yes, in light of what we currently know and in light of the ginormous amount of supporting evidence, I find it absolutely unthinkable that it will ever be overturned and demonstrated wrong. As unthinkable that spherical earth is every going to be disproven in favrou of flat-earth-ism.
Nonetheless, never say never. How unthinkable it seems, scientific intellectual honesty demands that one stays open to future evidence showing exactly that... no matter how incredibly unlikely and implausible that may seem.
But let's be serious here.... the person taking on that challenge has some 200 years worth of scientific study in a couple dozen fields to go up against.
See, the ultimate problem here is that you really don't comprehend just how big evolution theory is. Literally dozens of
different independent fields support this theory. This is why it is called the "unified field theory of biology", as it ties together ALL biological sciences and even gets cross reference support from fields like geology.
To show this theory wrong... would have to be just as impressive. It would require dealing with ALL the evidence that supports evolution. So it would require dealing with genetics, comparative anatomy, paleontology, molecular biology, micro-biology, bio-chemistry, comparative genomics, geographic distribution of species, etc etc etc etc.
You also don't seem to understand that the idea you favour over evolution, is the idea that was prevalent BEFORE darwin came up with natural selection.
This means that your idea was overturned by evolution.
So to think that evolution would be overturned and replaced by a model that was overturned by evolution.... is like thinking that tomorrow we'll find out that the earth isn't spherical after all and flat like people thought millenia ago. Or that heliocentrism, which replaced geocentrism, turns out wrong and that geocentrism was correct after all.
Or that Einstein was wrong and that Newton was more correct after all.
This is crazy.
Einsteinian physics might turn out wrong or inadequate. But the fact that it replaced Newtonian physics,
means that it better explained the evidence then Newtonian physics.
If new evidence comes up that relativity can't explain, or that even shows relativity to be wrong in some way or at some level,
that still wouldn't change the fact that relativity more accurately explains the evidence then Newtonian physics did!
The same goes for evolution. If tomorrow evolution is shown inadequate, it would STILL do a better job at explaining all the evidence then creationism does.
The NEW evidence might pose a problem for the theory. But all the other evidence wouldn't disappear in the shadows of the new evidence.
Even if shown inaccurate, evolution would STILL be a better fit for the evidence then ALL ideas that preceeded it was. Because that is precisely why it was accepted in the first place: it was a better fit for the evidence. That would remain so, even after new evidence comes up that doesn't fit into the model.
That remains as solid as it ever did, despite the fact that there is no concrete supporting it.....its made of matchsticks IMO.
You can believe that if you want.
But you'll just be incorrect.
But by now, we have already established on multiple occasions that for some reason you like being incorrect... That must be the case, considering how many times you were informed of your mistakes after which you simply repeat them, not caring at all about them having been corrected.
So.... yeah....
Same old, same old...
Business as usual, I guess.