The debate "The scientific community has a belief system and if researchers study outside of it they are shunned" was started by
June 25, 2014, 7:30 am.
25 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 55 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
tkershaw3 posted 1 argument, Intellect posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
matthewmcbroom121 posted 1 argument, Bailz posted 1 argument, arginotz posted 1 argument, mdavis1309 posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
tkershaw3, mariejans520, Shift_Logan, wmd, christopher1006, Wantonjon, Intellect, DavidStuff777, BabyT14, Martin2489, Haelaeif, Biotic and 13 visitors agree.
matthewmcbroom121, Bailz, arginotz, Portia_Yov, true_debate_life, Curious_Student, Flimpy, amwright, mdavis1309, rocknrole, guillermo63, JonL, Loui, Aakanksha, docaung, DeWthaDeW, Sosocratese, mattgreminger, Mikey2k, I_Voyager, liamjosephcash, PsychDave, project_mayhem, Tassja, gtomk, stormshy, transfanboy, skyfrancois_97 and 27 visitors disagree.
@intellect there is a flaw in your arguments. Catholicism was not open to being tested or refuted. If you said you doubted something, it was a crime. If you doubt something in Stephen Hawking's work, and you can demonstrate why, scientists will listen. If you are just shouting that you don't believe him, they will rightly ignore you until you have something to back up your claim.
Another difference is one of predictions. Scientists make predictions using their theories. If the prediction is accurate when tested, their theory gets more credibility. If their prediction is wrong, they have to figure out why they were wrong. This is a strong contrast to saying "I am never wrong because God said so!"
Science has taken the place of religion as the arbiter of knowledge, but science does a lot better job policing the information since scientific theories are always open to inspection and testing.
Medieval Catholicism belived that their system was fool proof because it was guided by God (which it wasn't) The scientific community believe s their system is fool proof because tuhe common people will provide a check and balances. (can you provide a proof for quantum fluctuation theory) Medieval Catholicism believed that the pope is always right because there is a power controlling him. Stephen Hawking (who is an agnostic I might add) is supposed to be controlled by the checks an balances. Is he? History repeats itself people. You might just be to blind to see it.
I think these guys really sum it all up.
The scientific community only makes two philosophical assumptions.
1. The universe exists objectively (regardless of our perception.)
2 . This universe obeys laws of cause and effect.
In other words, our universe can be tested in order to find out how and why it works, and hopefully we can find the truth even when the scientists and researchers who test it are inherently flawed (confirmation bias, shoddy research, falsification of data, etc.) These are the only assumptions the scientific method HAS to have in order to work.
Unfortunately scientists themselves make assumptions all the time. If enough researchers have the same assumptions about their work then scientists in the minority are often discredited, even if they're right.
Galileo for example was persecuted for suggesting the earth revolved around the sun. If he was right, then everything we thought we knew would be turned on its head, people's lifes works would be ruined, years of study based on the wrong info would be wasted. That's exactly what happened. When that revolution took place the scientific method was restructured and research began to be peer reviewed. Scientists learned the hard way that every theory should be treated with suspicion.
Nowadays the scientific community works on theories that they assume 'may' be true. Any one can be disproven at any time if someone creates an experiment that can disprove it as long as that experiment can be repeated with the same results and peers agree the experiment is conducted properly.
So back to the question. Obviously the only reason a researcher would disagree with another is if he has incentive to do so. The vast majority of scientists benefit from the truth. It's what they're paid to find. However there are a lot of research groups that are hired by companies that have a reason to lie, to make their product look better, or to sway public opinion towards regulations that benefit them. We call this pseudoscience. These people lie to sell products, claiming false research or using confusing jargon to convince people to buy something that doesn't work.
To sum up: If anyone is being ostracized by the scientific community, it's these people. Its possible there are a few Galileos out there, but the majority of 'scientists' being shunned are predators that benefit from lies. If they're called out they say they're being treated unfairly and appeal to people's ignorance.
TLDR: Yes, pseudoscientists.
Belief is accepting something to be true without proof.
They have a methodology which is deisgned to be objective and rational to find the truth. A piece of research should be repeatable and valid. If its not then its not 'good science' example would be Masaru Emotos experiment using water molecules, not one repeated hes findings he never released hes method for peer review so hes findings aren't reliable or valid so hes hypothesis arent true and is thrown out.
What belief system?