Raising the age of criminal responsibility?

[yaruar]

indeed, but until someone comes up with a better idea you have to accept it.

Although that's one of the flaws of the way in which scientific knoweldge develops. New theories have to follow the dominant paradigm otherwise they are dismissed out of hand, and the scientific community is a leviathan when it comes to changing direction.

 

[TdC]

indeed. or at least "why tdc yelled at his teachers at school for presenting him with models that were not true"

I know, but tbh I don't know if it's healthy to have a community full of mavericks and three people clinging to the prevailing paradigim rather than the current thing.

 

[MYstIC G]

I'm as thick as pig shit me.

I have never been in a childrens home or drove a car over a group of people either.

Go figure.

It's because you're too stupid to manage it?

 

[Scouse]

indeed, but until someone comes up with a better idea you have to accept it.

I agree - but I was responding to someone posting that their teacher said that they didn't need to understand the basics - unless you understand the basics you can't challenge them - and if you can't challenge them then you're never going to come up with the better idea

Because nobody questioned the accepted model of plant respiration we've been trundling along for years basing stuff like environmental models on a flawed base. The discovery that plants emit much more CO2 than was previously thought actually makes global warming predictions worse than before...

 

[TdC]

Yeah mate, that is the flaw that Yaruar touches on. The method isn't really wrong, it's just that you have to assume a base or you'll never get anything done.

Some bright spark may come up with a reason to doubt the base model you've been working with, and if he can prove the model is wrong then everyone feels like schmucks for 10 minutes, lots of papers get thrown away, and the bright spark will be all superior and say he "always" had his doubts

 

[yaruar]

Yeah mate, that is the flaw that Yaruar touches on. The method isn't really wrong, it's just that you have to assume a base or you'll never get anything done.

Some bright spark may come up with a reason to doubt the base model you've been working with, and if he can prove the model is wrong then everyone feels like schmucks for 10 minutes, lots of papers get thrown away, and the bright spark will be all superior and say he "always" had his doubts

The problem is, even if he has proof that the initial paradigm is wrong, for years the peer review system will tell him he is talking crap and can't be right because it doesn't fit into the "accepted" rule set. It's u8nderstandable though. If someone essentially proves that, say, a fundamental rule of physics is incorrect, that might well invalidate all the work 1000's of scients have been working on and have proved within the sandbox of the paradigm.
Scientific fact is that set of rules which the majority of scientists agree upon.

 

[Scouse]

Agree totally for stuff like astrophysical theories (relativity, quantum theory, string theory and the like).

Stuff that's easily testable with reproduceable results (like the plant thang) is nearly always quickly assimilated by scientists tho.

Yep tho. Scientists can be totally intractable. A bit like Tom

(Soz m8. Cheap shot!)

 

[Trem]

Tom isn't a scientist, hes a fluffer.