One final posting before I go off to Maryland for a complicated
bee research project:
People seem to love controversies when they are in someone else's
"backyard." Scientists also relish controversies when they deal with
minor issues.
By contrast, people become very upset when controversies strike at
the heart of their belief systems. That shouldn't be.
In my lectures, I have often said, "Controversy is the fuel of
scientific progress." Galileo had to work against the "consensus" of
the times, as did Pasteur, Darwin and scores of other "dissenters."
Today we don't consider that a black mark against the persistence of
those leaders.
I am not alone in this attitude. For instance, Naomi Kraus wrote
(p. 13 in THE SCIENTIST, December 12, 1994, in an article entitled:
"Scientific world's low tolerance for controversy may be what's
excluding young investigators"):
"Controversy is no longer viewed as the warf and woof of the
fabric of science. On the contrary, it seems to be perceived by the
powers that be as a potential source of embarrassment, which might
create problems for the public image of science."
and:
"The current emphasis on 'mainstream' thinking, along with
discouragement of dissent and innovation, ultimately stifles -- if
not entirely paralyzes -- progress in science."
Enough said?
Adrian
--
Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home office phone)
967 Garcia Road [log in to unmask]
Santa Barbara, CA 93103 www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm
*****************************************************
*
* "We not only believe what we see:
* to some extent we see what we believe."
*
* Richard Gregory (1970)
*
*****************************************************
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::