by msd1835 » December 29th, 2009, 8:41 pm
Exactly right, mathematics is the perfect example. In math if you start with an problem like (5+6=17-4) and you follow your steps back from your answer to the beginning you find that your answer doesn't fit. What I see in most of the sciences today (evolutionary biology, astro-physics, etc.) is that they make up a new theory to make "17" work. All these physical and social sciences fall apart whenever they reach their beginnings. The beginnings can't be solved/proven. When trying to explain the birth of the universe everything works fine until you reach the beginning, when none of the math works. Evolution works fine until you try to explain the creation of the first cell or even the amount of data contained in a single strand of DNA. Carbon data, though based mostly upon the mathematics of radioactive carbon half-life, must begin with an assumption of a closed system and the fact that evolution is a fact so that an "appropriate" dating method can be chosen. Lord forbid that one of mankind's theories prove to be an error. Try looking up String Theory, which if memory serves was one the biggest and most popular theories of the 80 and 90's proved in the end to mistaken, and it turned out that the lesser known theory explained the issue better.
The examples of cyclical thinking within academia will spin your head. I almost got roasted by one of my professor's glares one time because I mentioned that I had recognised a certian arrogance that seems to come with intelligence and education. I personally feel that this is related more to pride than anything else.
This is all my opinion and is totally capable of being wrong.