Looking beyond the horizons of our knowledge: does it make sense?

A complaint that returns often in discussions about supernatural phenomenons, but probably also in ID etc., is that certain controversial assumptions do not get enough attention from the scientific community, because science is so "closed-minded". Didn't the past show that anything is possible? That there have been changes in paradigm, sometimes turning our understanding of reality totally upside down? Why then are scientists always so arrogant to dismiss any example of thinking outside the box? Shouldn't we open our minds a bit further? People who point this out, have some impressive examples available to illustrate that they are "right". One that I always remember (but which will not be used by them, probably ;-) )is how Lord Kelvin completely dismissed the possibility that the sun was millions of years old, because he thought it got its energy from gravitational contraction. As a result, he actually dismissed Evolution because his calculations, based on that pre-nuclear science "knowledge", showed that there would not be enough time before the sun burnt out.What this example does illustrate, is that it is a delicate issue. I've often asked myself the question: who would I have supported if I had been around at the time? And who SHOULD I have supported? What approach makes most sense, and does it STILL make most sense in retrospect? Does science stagnate because of being too conservative, or does it remain inherently non-sensical to take the "Unknown" into account?Edit: I actually found a nice article concerning the age of the sun (and the "Kelvin-incident") after writing this mailManagement trainee till Nobelstiftelsen - NobelPrize.orgThis message has been edited by Annafan, 08-18-2005 07:04 PM

Thread copied to the Looking beyond the horizons of our knowledge: does it make sense? thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.