Edge,
quote:
I regret this. I was simply trying to (tactfully at first) suggest that one learn a bit about the subject before rejecting old work and expounding new theories based on incomplete knowledge. Apparently, my strategy has failed.
Isn't this how the most significant discoveries come about in science? Isn't it a scientist who decides the current analysis of the data is flawed that usually makes a real breakthrough? I just watched a beautiful mind again the other night seems John Nash didn't seem to keen on following along with what everyone else thought. Innovation< imagination, this is where the discovery is made. Would we ever learn anything new if everyone just took what we had and stuck with that?
There are different types of people needed to advance science. You need the imaginative people who run off and come up with ideas. You need people to verify and discredit these ideas. Otherwise it will get out of control. So neither type is more intelligent they just have a different role. Why is someone condemned for using their imagination to make discoveries? Their role is just as significant as the mainstream scientist who just regurgitates and critiques.
I know I'm not involved in this thread I just was thinking about this as I caught up on what's going on here.
------------------
saved by grace