Mainstream Science.

[Atheist]

Why do some people disbelieve the current scientific consensus regarding e.g. evolution or man-made global warming? There are people who cherry-pick comments from a tiny minority of scientists so as to find stuff that supports their own views. Where do their views come from if not from an instinct that tells them that mainstream science is against their religion or that it must be wrong simply because it is mainstream?
There is sometimes a view expressed that everybody laughed at so-and-so and called him a crank; and then he was later vindicated. I don't think that 'cranks' are usually right, I think they are usually wrong. Lets face it, mainstream science has led to an understanding of the solar system and powered flight and electronics and social media. Most of the crank stuff has disappeared when it became obvious that it didn't work.
Can anyone name one 'crank' who was later vindicated?

[Spungle]

How is consensus scientific?

[douglas9401]

Why, yes.

https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/mavericks-and-heretics/

[Atheist]

Spungle. Scientists examine the world and come up with theories which they then test against observation. They present their results to the world and others examine those results and try to reproduce the experiments. If most scientists get the same answers, there then becomes a consensus. If only religionists did the same!

[Atheist]

Douglas, all those people presented their ideas to the world for examination by others. The ones on the list were the ones whose ideas/theories stood the test of time. There must have been thousands who had mistaken ideas and they were shown to be wrong and so forgotten. Being weird doesn't mean that you are right.

[douglas9401]

"Can anyone name one 'crank' who was later vindicated?"

Asked and answered, even mostly alphabetical.

Clearly I've misunderstood your question.

[Atheist]

Douglas, I'm think I'm afraid you have. I hope you don't presume that being rejected by mainstream science means that you must be right.

[bobbinwales]

Well douglas is'nt alone then as am in agreement with him that his provided far more than the one name you asked for

[bobbinwales]

//I hope you don't presume that being rejected by mainstream science means that you must be right//
Now your completeatly misunderstanding douglas's good point .

[THECORBYLOON]

Below the table in DOUGLAS' link, it states,

"Ignored, Scorned…Vindicated. The maverick scientists whose heretical ideas were ultimately proven correct…

…eventually."

Is that not what was requested?

[Atheist]

Bobb, Douglas; a list of people who were proposing new ideas and who were then shown to be on the right track is simply an illustration of how science works. It doesn't prove that people with new ideas are usually right. My issue is with those who think that people outside the accepted scientific consensus must be misunderstood geniuses.

[THECORBYLOON]

You asked "Can anyone name one 'crank' who was later vindicated?" and you were given examples.

What is it you're not understanding?

[Atheist]

You're right that new ideas were often rejected, but as I say it doesn't follow that all rejected ideas were actually brilliant. There does seem to be a wave of acceptance or justification of weird stuff on the grounds that a tiny percentage of weird stuff turned out to have validity.

[douglas9401]

You are andy_hughes and I claim my five pounds.

[THECORBYLOON]

"it doesn't follow that all rejected ideas were actually brilliant." Who has made that claim?

Some folk believe the earth is flat and some believe there is a dome above the flat earth.

That does not mean that all those who think the earth is flat also believe in the dome theory.

[Spungle]

Atheist- Are there really scientists who have ever "reproduced" anything which remotely resembles "proof" of evolution or man-made climate change? I think any true scientist would admit a theory remains a theory until it is proven. Why is believing consensus scientific? I suggest the opposite is probably true. Doesn't science very often challenge the "consensus"?

[Karolina82]

The scientific method is taught to children at school. It goes something like:
1. Ask a question based on some observation,
2. do some research,
3. form a hypothesis,
4. test the hypothesis with experiments,
5. make observations,
6. publish results, share them, are they reproduceable? and
7. form a new hypothesis and make new predictions.
Charles Darwin went through a similar process. He was ridiculed and lampooned during his lifetime. Has he been vindicated?

[Atheist]

Spungle 20:32; "Are there really scientists who have ever "reproduced" anything which remotely resembles "proof" of evolution or man-made climate change? I think any true scientist would admit a theory remains a theory until it is proven. Why is believing consensus scientific? I suggest the opposite is probably true. Doesn't science very often challenge the "consensus"?"
I don't think that science ever regards anything as 'proven'. What's your view (if you have one) on evolution or on climate change? If you have a view, on what do you base it?

[Atheist]

Karo, Darwin has been broadly accepted as providing a powerful explanation of how living creatures developed.

[douglas9401]

Apparently when some people are presented with verified information they doggedly refuse to accept or even acknowledge the same.

Who knows why such things happen but it takes all kinds, etc.

[pastafreak]

Can I just say thank you to Douglas for the link at 19:18. It looks like a good site to get lost in when things get silly stupid on here.