Getting lucky is not good science

[unixronin]

In the interview in the January 2009 issue of Discover Magazine, Stanford's Professor Robert Proctor (who teaches the history of science) submits creationists' rejection of the Piltdown hoax as an example of good science coming from a strong, although incorrect, ideology.  I submit that he is flatly wrong in, at the least, his choice of example.

Yes, creationists rejected the Piltdown skull as a fraud.  They also rejected, and continue to reject, every other piece of data and scientific theory that contradicts their dogma that the Universe was created in seven days by divine fiat six thousand and twelve years ago.  The mere fact that in the Piltdown case, they happened by sheer luck to be right that it was a fraud, doesn't make their rejection good science; in fact, it doesn't make it any kind of science at all, because their denial was based on dogma, not on scientific method.  Their judgement on the Piltdown skull was made not for scientific, or even non-scientific reasons, but for actively anti-scientific reasons.  It contradicted their dogma, and their dogma was by their definition unquestionably right, therefore the Piltdown skull was automatically and necessarily a fraud.  It was not the "missing link" because, to them, no missing link could possibly exist.

Being right by sheer blind chance, one time in a hundred, for totally the wrong reasons, can't be good science — because it isn't science in the first place.

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I disagree with that, although I see your point. The history of science is full of cases in which dogmatic "facts" that Everyone Knew Were True were proved wrong because someone asked "Yes, but is it really so?" or "But why should that be?" or "That's all very well, but how do you reconcile that with this observation?"

[johnkzin.livejournal.com]

At best, science is better at challenging its own dogmas than perhaps other fields of human thought. But, it still has its dogmas. Look at how much resistance there was to the emergence of Chaos as a field of study ... or how much in fighting there is between the different factions of string theory, or how being of a particular faction can affect your funding at some institutions.

Scientists wrap their insecurities and egos up in their conclusions and assumptions. And that becomes their dogma. It infects their experimental biases, and what they pass on to students, junior colleagues, etc. And they are VERY reluctant to entertain challenges to those things, even in the face of experimental proof. So much so that outsiders can easily mistake it for being comparable to a religion.

With enough experiments, and validations, the ice thaws ... but that doesn't change that the ice is there ... and that that the ice looks, smells, and tastes like dogma.