Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
> The problem is that you cannot do a research about something without
> being at least a bit convinced that indeed your ideas are right... It
> does not prevent from being open-minded but at some point it will be a
> matter of opinion, if two theories explain the facts.

  There's a difference between an attitude like "I think this is a very
plausible theory, and I'm going to try to find even more evidence to
support it", and "this theory is the truth, and anyone who doubts it
is nuts and deserves ridicule".

  You can find the latter attitude in all kind of people, from complete
laymen to amateur scientists to professional scientists. Sure, not *all*
people are like that, but many are.

  I don't disagree that any pseudoscientist or religious fanatic who
presents completely unscientifical and implausible claims with no proof
nor evidence deserves to be ignored and if such claims get widespread, it
very much deserves scientifical debunking.

  However, debunking and ridicule are two different things. The former
shows scientifical thinking, the latter shows arrogance.

  Another typical attitude is that anyone who presents even the slightest
opposition to the idea that evolution is the whole Truth, that the evolution
theory presents exactly and accurately what happened, must be a creationist.
The attitude seems to be "if you can't present any counter-arguments or
scientifically plausible alternative theories, then you simply must believe
in the theory of evolution as presented". It's as if it was completely
unscientifical and illogical to doubt a theory if there exists no plausible
alternative. And in this case, if you doubt it, you must be a creationist.
There is no other possibility. Of course this is also a logical fallacy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message