Importance Of Evidence As A Golden Rule

Evidence as a Golden Rule
In my eyes, a scientist must be able to accept that his or her theories may be wrong and accept the evidence that may prove them so. A key component in my decision of a pseudoscience from real science in the willingness of a scientist to accept where he or she is incorrect. However, I would like to narrow the demarcation criteria by asserting that a real scientist must also accept an opposing theory and approach it as they would in falsifying their own theories. I cannot begin to understand how scientists and ordinary people alike would rather damn a dissenting view without evidence or refuse evidence from a popular view. If a person would rather use these tactics, without accepting evidence or providing evidence in the first place, I don’t think this person should be considered a scientist. It wouldn’t matter if the science they practice is widely accepted. I do not think a scientist should refute a claim without evidence or reject evidence that suggests their claim is incorrect.
I was very upset when I heard about how some of the …show more content…
Price seemed to make it clear that he enjoyed these kinds of questions against popular science when he reviewed Velikovsky’s first half of Earth in Upheaval, and, to be honest, I enjoy them too. A claim should not be held up on a golden pedestal due to its statistical probability of being falsified, and going against these kinds of claims, even in cases where you are in the wrong, is the true epitome of science. As I’ve concluded in previous papers and in-class discussions, as wells as heard in Intelligent Design on Trial, science does not find truths of the world. I do not think that scientific claims should be held up to be truths in the world and should be open to, as well as encouraged to, be falsified or questioned by other theories or