Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Of course, however, how often has science been made to progress by those that have defied convention and looked outside of the box. Nearly every major advance in science has been made that way. Now, whilst much of that advance has been made on the previous work of others, the truly insightful advances have come from original thinking. It's not a matter of ignoring, completely, the work of others or the accepted facts, it's about seeing another way of looking at things, or taking what may have been outlandish and crazy and seeing if it actually works.
|
That's actually quite a valid point.
Einstein himself, after studying electromagnetism, saw what was needed and then applied science to the task of constructing an explanation. He did this for SR and then in exactly the same way for GR. He saw what was needed to bring it all together and then applied the tools to build it.
Isn't this what many people are trying to do with what we are discussing? See what is needed to explain what we observe and then employ the tools for its construction.
I also see the clear need for the 'Scientific Method', BUT, perhaps we really are missing some type of interface, between the two trains of thought. I mentioned earlier about a Philosophy of Science...the 'Village Elders' method of inquiry.
We actually have this in aerospace engineering, it's called an 'Independent' , whereby an independent entity, who is broadly educated, and looks upon ALL the information to find merit and/or fault. What does science have at the moment, peer review...that could be seen as the proverbial 'Fox guarding the hen-house'.
Steven, seriously mate, you have to admit that there is a biased pro-science viewpoint associated with peer review?!
Where's the independence? Should there be another, higher, level of review?