Eclogite writes:
Geologists were blind to plate tectonics for decades because they would not accept that it was possible. The evidence was there but was ignored, rejected, or misinterpreted rather than accept that it demonstrated drifting continents.
Even a cursory reading of Kuhn will demonstrate that your view, expressed above, is at the very least naive.
How is it naive in any way? Aren't the theories of plate tectonics fully accepted and used today? This sounds like evidence of my position, that observations of things that don't agree with current standards are looked at, and eventually adopted, after being shown to provide better understanding.
How does the fact that a new, better theory replaced an old one help what you're trying to say that scientists don't look for alternative explanations? This simply proves that scientists do indeed look for alternative explanations, and adopt those new explanations when they can be shown to better explain data than previous ideas.
Just because the process isn't as fast as you'd desire doesn't mean it doesn't work. It simply means that the process is immunne to 'flights of fancy' or following anyone's personal bias. This is a good thing.
Such properties could be the result of chance, but they might also be the result of design. I can readily provide other examples if you wish.
So, if it can be explained with current ideas, why switch to another idea that 'might' also explain the data? How does the new explanation provide a better understanding of the phenomenon? You said "such properties could be the result of chance". So, if the current idea is quite capable of explaining the 'profoundly different' idea that was uncovered, what's the problem? Why the need to quickly switch right over to the other theory that, you admit, only 'might' explain the idea?
If the new theory actually is better, and actually does explain the evidence. This will be shown, as we collect more information. However, it's also quite possible that this new theory is simply a bit of someone's imagination. Therefore, it is only prudent not to prematurely switch an idea from something that already does explain the data to something that only 'might' explain the data.
Especially when the new idea doesn't provide any more insight or other helpful information. What if this was true? What if the correct explanation was 'design'? How does this add any value? The current idea of 'result of chance' (as you put it, which is untrue, but we'll stick with your wording) provides us with many medical advances. What advances does the explanation of 'design' provide? If there's no additional advances that come along with the new explanation, why should anyone use the new explanation?
™ Version 4.2
