On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: .
> But it's difficult to come up with a phenomenon on the scale of cold > fusion that was rejected for decades and was later vindicated. There is, as > described in Hagelstein's essay, Semmelweis, and to a lesser degree there > is Ohm, but both of those go back 150 years, when progress was slower, and > scientific thought was different. In any case, I'd be interested in a more > recent example. > When blood transfusions were first tried (in 17th century?) some were a success and some ended in deaths and nobody knew why. It wasn't explained until the discovery of blood typing in the early 20th century. Until then blood transfusions were prohibited, for good ethical reasons. > > > > > > > But surely it doesn't say that mainstream thought *must* be wrong whenever > a new idea is introduced, because that rapidly leads to a catch-22. > > So, can we predict whether mainstream thought is right based on previous > phenomena? Well, scientists should obviously make their judgements based on > the evidence. As for observers trying to decide what to bet on, the > consensus of experts is surely the most likely approximation to the truth. > What else is there? The consensus of plumbers? The consensus of your > friends? The consensus of true believers of the fringe view? Your own > preference? Should we accept creationism, homeopathy, dowsing, telekinesis? > Why must a community comprised of intelligent people demonise certain research interests? Harry
