On 22/07/2020 18:08, #Paul wrote:
AnthonyL wrote:
Why do scientists need to BELIEVE in anything?

Very interesting question: the short answer is they don't, except they
need to at least sort of believe the 'evidence of their senses', and the
basic structure they impose on the Universe -
space-time/matter/energy/causality etc are all useful *assumptions*, but
are metaphysical - unprovable - in nature.


When I hear them arguing and disagreeing with eachother the thought
that immediately comes to me is "You are scientists. If there is not
a proof there that satisfies all then shut up and go seek it".

Debating or discussing with each other -- the loaded "arguing" is
rarely the appropriate word -- is quite a good way of finding out
what the differences really are, whether or not one's position
needs adjustment, or what steps might be taken to clarify or
prove the thing one way or another.

Arguing can sometimes be the right word. Fred Hoyle's disparaging use of
the term "Big Bang" Cosmology to describe the new theory that supplanted
his own Steady State Universe model for instance. It didn't help that
some of the early observational radio telescope surveys that made steady
state untenable was partly contaminated with ghost sources in sidelobes.

When cosmic microwave background was observed by Bell Labs the case for
Big Bang was essentially water tight but adherents to Steady State never
gave in. They fought a rear guard action pretty much to the last man.

I not infrequently disagree with my colleagues, since we not only
have different backgrounds, different expertise, and often different
intuitions; the resulting debate is not only instructive but productive.

When big egos get involved things can get ugly even in science.

A sadder case was the poor unfortunate Russian scientist who found the
first self catalysing redox clock reaction that flew in the face of
normal chemical theory as it was known at the time. Unable to get it
published other than in an obscure Russian journal he eventually gave up
working as a scientist and never lived to see it become world famous in
the 1970's. He was unlucky and well ahead of his time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belous...insky_reaction

Wegeners continental drift was another good idea that was ridiculed at
first but ultimately the mass of evidence overwhelmed his critics.

https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html

--
Regards,
Martin Brown