I think it is very important to distinguish between the scientist and the science enthusiast. It is also important to acknowledge that, just because a system does not acknowledge or take seriously your own theories does not mean they only except what's "in the club". Now, to clarify what I mean.deer of the dawn wrote:Peter, so much of what is acceptable in the scientific community, it seems to me, depends on who you are and who you know. Certain scientists get a hearing, no matter how laughable their pet theories are. But someone from outside the inner circle can come up with something brilliant and never be heard. Theoretical science seems very much show biz from where I sit.
Science, as it stands in the modern world, is a trade. There are techniques and methods that have been tried and found to be 'true' (i.e. functional, not break under pressure, not True with a capital 't'). It takes time, effort, talent, and experience to master these techniques and methods. As a result, those who are not scientists may glance at them at work and, being unfamiliar with what is going on, think the ideas are crazy or that they are pulling their leg. Likewise, it is difficult for scientists to explain some things to the lay man whose knowledge of mathematical models (as an example) are lacking or non existent. And, of course, some people's brains are made up in such a way that science will never make sense to them (much like there are some people who simply can not believe in God).
What you guys seem to react to the most are 'science enthusiasts'. I'll just flat out call them the 'cult of science'. These people, instead of being scientists, are for the most part non-scientists that build their worldview on some of the results of science, adding their own philosophical trappings to it. These are the people who read Richard Dawkins religiously, like "I F-ing Love Science" on Facebook, and decide to fight for science in that currently fictitious war between science and religion. If you are lucky, some have taken entry level courses in some science, but they ultimately do not nor can not understand it because they have not done it. They are like Freemasons compared with actual masons. Or, on the religious side, Westboro Baptist Church compared with a more mainstream Christianity. Westboro does base itself off the Bible, but you would consider it wildly misinterpretive of Christ's teachings and you would further urge people to not judge Christianity based on the Westboro Baptist Church.
And I would do the same with science: do not judge it simply because some college freshmen have decided it is chic or how global warming cultists act. Most scientists can and do separate what they do from any spirituality/morality and more then willing to permit others the same right. What they will find frustrating is the misrepresentation of scientific principles or experimental results... which happens all the flipping time, and mostly by the 'enthusiasts'.
And, of course, there's the 'funding' aspect to it also, which is why every project "has the potential to cure cancer/save the world", but that's another story.
) prior to the next round of budget setting has become so blatent as to be almost embarresing - and this too I was taught about 30 years ago. All showing there is nothing new under the sun! 