On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 05:22:45 +0000 (UTC), 
Malcolm  wrote:
> 
> "Jim McGinn"  wrote
>>
>> > and the consensus result of the peer review is
>> > that they are both wrong and Hamilton is right.
>>
>> Science is not a democracy.  It's a method of
>> arriving at truth that is supposed to cut through
>> the natural tendency of humans to believe.
>>
> This is very much worth saying.

Yes it is.

> It is of course possible to know that you are right and that the peer
> reviewers are wrong, and all the professorial chairs and Nobel prizes and
> positions on the editorial boards of journals ultimately count for nothing.
> However to win the judgement of history and go down as a famous scientist
> you do of course eventually have to force those professors and committees to
> admit that they were wrong. 

This is correct.

> What usually happens is that the old generation dies off, and with it the 
> old wrong ideas. It is relatively rare for someone to change an entrenched 
> opinion, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

This is not correct - it has the status of an urban myth.

In my fields (biochemistry, molecular biology, evolution) there have been 
many changes of "entrenched opinion." The old guys are just as likely to 
change as the young ones. In fact, it is sometimes the old established
scientists who lead the change.



Larry Moran
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/29/04 4:21:43 PM