On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:07:53 -0800 (PST), Nytemuse <nytemuse at auros.org> wrote: >Well, except for the fact that a scientist is, for the most part, >perfectly happy to be proven wrong. I've never seen a priest react that >way. :) heh. I have have found it extraordinarily difficult to prove a priest wrong (to the priest's satisfaction), so have little data ;<) I'd have to say that of the scientists I've worked with and respected, all were willing to be proved wrong, but I've seen enough and heard enough stories to make me doubt "for the most part". I'm not sure that I can say that that is universally bad. Einstein directed his post-GR efforts based on an informed faith that he was taking a reasonable approach. That is an example of a very talented individual making a very well informed decision of faith and failing. We tend to celebrate those people who make similar choices and turn out to have been right. I suspect there are many achievements that would not be made without such commitments and that there are many more such commitments that fail than succeed. What is necessary to succeed is a firm conviction that the decision taken will ultimately turn out to be right, despite all the intermediate setbacks. What is that but a strong unwillingness to be demonstrated wrong? The "scientist" is one who can recognize the logical consequences of an experiment and, as you say, alter her beliefs based on this. But what experiments reveal is quite different than what is needed to decide what to do next, where to devote one's efforts, what area to study, what will prove fruitful - these are matters of informed faith in the field of hard science - such decisions form a much larger percentage of all decisions in other aspects of life. Richard