> > > The dirty secret of science is that most scientists are not nearly as open-minded as they want people to think they are. Right now cold fusion is a heresy, and anybody who speaks out in favor of it is shunned.
> >
> > Your take on science and scientists is right on target.
>
> If scientific researchers weren't willing to accept new ideas, nothing would ever change. Scientific progress is built on the fact that the scientific method and its practitioners are good at evaluating and accepting radical ideas.

Yes, but is daniel78's point not also valid? I find it overly cynical to dismiss scientists as a class for being allegedly less open-minded and objective than they should be. But I also find it overly rose-colored to suggest that scientists, both as individuals and as research organizations, don't do this to an extent. Nobody is truly objective. No matter how much we might like to think otherwise, we all see the world through personal and therefore skewed perspectives. We all have agendas, egos, and rivalries that get in the way of our objective judgment, and that impact on the decisions of even respected organizations and publications should not be underestimated.

But it shouldn't be overestimated either. It's important to distinguish between science -- which is a sound method for acquiring knowledge (even if you argue, as I would, that it is insufficient for learning *everything* worth knowing out there) -- and the people who practice it imperfectly.

The distinction is important, because it means that the pursuit of science *can* be done correctly. Just because some people or organizations screw it up some of the time, and others screw it up all the time, doesn't mean you can't get it right yourself, properly evaluate the work of others, or trust that certain people or organizations get it right enough of the time to find it illuminating and useful to trust their findings.