|
|
|
|
|
|
by aaaaaatttuyy
2614 days ago
|
|
|
Yep, it does indeed have a nefarious past, and archaeologist tend to own this criticism and have worked towards genuinely working in an anti-colonial spirit (though there are still soooo many things that need to be improved upon). Does this negate the work that has come out of archaeological research? Not necessarily. Also note that genetics has been harnessed extensively for political purposes, especially in tandem with archaeology (see: eugenics). Does that de-legitimize its genuine practical applications today, when conducted in an ethical, respectful and regulated manner? edited to convey what I actually meant to say, and mistyped due to being drunk. |
|
|
Another notorious example was the discovery of the bacteria that causes most ulcers - the person who discovered that was vilified for at least a decade or so.
The root problem is simple: most people treat what they learned during their initial education as a kind of gospel, which they defend with the same fervour as any faith. This defense relies on things like social shaming to repel ideas that challenge their faith. This means that for an individual, stepping outside the faith has consequences, which has the effect of keeping most people in line and part of the defense against significant change.
Max Planck recognized this when he wrote, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”