> But to say science has orthodox ideas and
> heretical ideas is just foolish. The fastest,
> best way to make a name for yourself in science
> is to come up with a theory that challenges
> the "orthodox beliefs" and stands up to
> scrutiny. You get *rewarded* in science for
> being a "heretic", not punished!


I'll play the devil's advocate here (with the caveat that this post is not about cold fusion, but rather about the nature of the scientific community):

Sometimes, you are right, the underdog wins; but that is not always the case. You make a big assumption here when you say, "...and stands up to scrutiny." Namely, the assumption is that the scrutiny will happen at all. Often, the only "reward" that a scientific heretic gains is a lack of funding for future projects, a lack of reputation, papers that don't get published, etc. If the idea is too far out of the mainstream, scientists simply won't bother to reproduce your experiments, and THAT can cause legitimate knowledge to be discarded. (After all, the scientific community can always rely on the crutch that the experiment worked once, but it was never reproduced, so the data is therefore suspect.)

I think that many scientists strive for objectivity - and in an ideal world, they would be completely objective in their search for the truth about the universe. But they are, ultimately, mere people, who can form emotional attachments to their own ideas the same way that other people form attachments to a nice car, or a home, or anything else in life.

I mean, just think about it - if all that scientists were really concerned about was the pure search for the truth, then the personal reputation of a scientist would be completely irrelevant - because personal reputations have nothing to do with the laws of the universe. What is a Nobel prize, except a large amount of money (and an even larger amount of reputation)?

The way that the system is now set up, if you have a reputation as a "crackpot", then nobody's going to even try to reproduce your experiments. Would you like a valid example of this phenomenon? Just look at how much legitimate research has been done on the field of neurofeedback since the 1970's. There was some legitimate research that went on, and some concrete results were produced, but then all of the New Age hippy freaks latched on to the concept as a new way of expanding their horizons... and now scientists won't touch neurofeedback with a 10-foot pole. Why? Because they don't want their reputations (and grants, and future paper submissions) to suffer as a result of doing legitimate research in a field that has a tainted reputation.

Now, think about it: If all scientists were truly, honestly objective in their search for the truth about the laws of the universe, would the valid research about neurofeedback have been ignored? I'm just using neurofeedback as an example, but it does make one wonder: what other areas do scientists intentionally ignore?

And - here's one final point to ponder: Are you (the reader of this post) open-minded to the possibility that the scientific community is not completely objective? In other words, are you willing to consider evidence contrary to your own opinion, or are you emotionally attached to the idea that the scientific community is completely objective?

- Enigma