Admiral Valdemar wrote:
It's a common argument that when a scientist doesn't bend to public criticism (or even from other scientists), he's simply being arrogant. But have them actually change their views upon taking onboard new evidence and viewpoints, and all of a sudden their science is utterly flawed and their position untenable. Just like politicians "flip-flopping", it shows weakness, not an ability to be humbled, address their own mistakes, and correct their views accordingly. No, far better to stick to your guns and go out with a bang until (or even beyond) the time your mistakes are abundantly obvious.
Biblical inerrancy isn't just for the Bible anymore.
Unfortunately, public opinion is so massively incompatible with the scientific method that the two cannot be reconciled. How do you explain the difference between "political flip-flopping" and "improving and revising a theory in light of new data", when you're talking to the common folk?
People, as a general term, are stupid and irrational, and cannot be seriously expected to hold valid or useful opinions on science. In short, if they don't have some postsecondary education in the subject then they should shut the fuck up and let the smart people do the talking. Unfortunately, that won't happen because the common man's ego is much too large to allow that kind of intellectually submissive attitude, even if he doesn't deserve his own opinion of himself.