Like any other collective enterprise, science only is materialized if there is communication between the people that are busy themselves with it. Nevertheless, more than most of collective enterprises, science depends on criticism to advance. The scientific discovery key moment, as Popper pointed, is the error. An experiment that refutes a theory is much more informative and, therefore, decisive than one experiment that corroborates it.
In this context, it is important not only that scientists may criticize colleagues and superiors as well as that they have the freedom to challenge established canons. We may even conceive that science can produced in a scenario of ideas censorship, but it would probably walk in an hesitant way, worrying in not to displease the powerful ones. – Hélio Schwartsman in Ciência e liberdade [Science and freedom], Folha de São Paulo, Oct. 8, 2014.
Full text (Portuguese)
Folha de São Paulo is the largest Brazilian newspaper with more than 300,000 copies sold daily.
It’s unusual for a journalist to be taking this view. We are more accustomed to outdated media figures fussing that too many people don’t trust experts these days.
Our source advises that Schwartsman is not sympathetic to ID. We don’t care, as long as he isn’t supportive of Darwinism over evidence. If he were, his quarrel would not just be with ID anyway, these days. See, for example, Top sci mag Nature says urgent rethink sought on evolution theory but resisted because … it might make people think they support ID. Of course, that could just be an excuse.
See also: Conference on intelligent design coming up in Brazil (if it isn’t shut down) mid-November
Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista