|
|
I am not backing away from my previous statements. My original statement, which you quoted, is pretty clear as far as I am concerned, "Science and politics are two areas where intuition should have no opening except as a basis for research". I agree with this absolutely. If I had known that you were going to take exception to it then I would have clarified further. At the time I was thinking of examples such as political rhetoric designed to appeal to the heart rather than the mind, and pseudoscience, usually financially motivated, to market unproven products and ideas to the gullible. But it applies equally well -- with a slightly different emphasis, since the "except" clause almost always applies -- to scientific areas where theories are indistinct, but are formulated (intuitively, if you will) and investigated by methodical scientists.
>Of course innovative ideas need to be validated by existing scientific knowledge - but it is so often the innovative idea which moves science forward.
Agreed.
>But you have implied that the intuitive 'leap in the dark' has rarely led to an increase in scientific knowledge.
I do not believe I said that, but if I implied it I apologise. It applies only in certain situations: if it's a "leap in the dark" that is wrong, but assumed to be right without evidence, it can also set science back many years. A leap in the dark that is subsequently proven to be right has undeniable value.
Personally, I am a bit fed up with this conversation, as you evidently believe that I have an opinion that I don't have, or that I must be changing it constantly to suit the occasion, and every post ends up as a discussion on semantics. So I'm going to bed. Night night! 
David
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
