> Why is it bad science to be radically questioning the status quo?
It's not bad science unless the "questioning" isn't accompanied by evidence. Science is not steered by authority, but by evidence.
If you have authority but no evidence, scientists won't listen to you. Example Nobel Prizewinner Linus Pauling's claims about vitamin C and the common cold.
If you have evidence but no authority, scientists will listen to you. Example Albert Einstein, who as a lowly patent clerk overthrew much of the physics of his day -- but only after evidence and observation began to support his theories.
In science, evidence means everything, reputation means nothing. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.
> And I really hope you're being ironic using a Feynman quote there!
If you had met Feynman, you would realize when he said something like that, he wasn't posing as any kind of authority. This naturally reminds me of one of my favorite Einstein quotes:
"To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself."
Paul, I just looked you up and realised of course you would have met Feynman.
Although he died when I was 3, Reading books by and about him when I was going through my final years of undergrad changed the course of my life - I am now a final year medical student due to the influence of him and, subsequently, Carl Sagan.
so, I guess this is just a hand wave across the internet at someone who has achieved much and met one or more of my intellectual idols.
ps. I find your aperger's by proxy article very interesting.
I agree with your last sentence. However, we're not talking about science as a discipline. We're talking about the community of human beings within the scientific community. In that regard, reputation quite often trumps evidence. If you don't believe that, you have a far higher opinion of human nature than is warranted.
> However, we're not talking about science as a discipline ...
I have to say that, when I use the word "science", I'm not talking about scientists, but scientific principles. I do this because science exists primarily to defend against all the ways scientists will get it wrong without the discipline science provides.
> We're talking about the community of human beings within the scientific community.
It is because of that "community" and its foibles that science exists and has its present form.
> If you don't believe that, you have a far higher opinion of human nature than is warranted.
I hope you see now that it's exactly the reverse of your assumption.
It's not bad science unless the "questioning" isn't accompanied by evidence. Science is not steered by authority, but by evidence.
If you have authority but no evidence, scientists won't listen to you. Example Nobel Prizewinner Linus Pauling's claims about vitamin C and the common cold.
If you have evidence but no authority, scientists will listen to you. Example Albert Einstein, who as a lowly patent clerk overthrew much of the physics of his day -- but only after evidence and observation began to support his theories.
In science, evidence means everything, reputation means nothing. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.