[WikiEN-l] Expert editors

[George Herbert]

On 9/17/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/17/06, Kim van der Linde <kim at kimvdlinde.com> wrote:
>
> > geni wrote:
> > Science determined by popular vote?
> >
>
> A popular vote of of scientists would not be the worst description of
> what goes on. Although of course the actual process is ar more
> complex.

Also varying wildly from scientific discipline to discipline, and
beyond that from subspecialty to subspecialty.  There are small fields
of science where there are no more than a handful of practitioners,
and those with thousands.

Some of the ones I am more familiar with, including planetary science,
are particularly consensus-driven.  Partly that is because experiments
(space missions to planets, with particular instruments) take years at
best and often decades to deliver results.

Physics has wandered off into an interesting consensus experiment,
looking for theories to solve the grand unification and related
problems, and so far finding little which is formally testable in many
of the fields under analysis.

Math seems different, but I only watch from a distance.

> > Or do you mean that scientists are human and resist changes like most
> > people and that paradigm shifts take time to filter through?
> >
> > Kim
> >
>
> I never really liked the paradigm shifts model becuase it lacked
> falsifiability (and yes I'm aware of the irony of that statement).

Hah.  Nice.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com