A recent thread has reminded me of a guy, Mike Manea, that had a blog years ago, I think it’s gone. He’s a 7th Day Adventist and really into the technical stuff, but gets it horribly wrong. He had some theory about proving God, but he had this analogy about how he couldn’t get the science community to consider it.
He asked, what if there was a girl’s basketball team that was doing well and some of them wanted to be on the boy’s team? Then the boys said, okay, if your best girl’s team can beat our best boy’s team, then girls can play on the boy’s team. That would be a pretty high bar, and the girls would continue to be locked out of the boy’s league. He said it’s how he feels, with his theory. That he needed funding and research teams, but he could never get that.
I’m sure he felt that way, but I’m also sure he was blind to how science works. I tried pointing out that it was religion that held that “boy’s team” position for centuries, but he ignored that. I think we can look at how science is not being applied to men’s and women’s sports and see the advantages of scientific approaches. Science has, and to some degree still does, suffer from sexism, but sexism is not defended by science (okay, some fringe stuff). With science, you should be gauged on your skills and abilities on the court, not what is under your clothes.
I see people on the internet doing this, less clumsily than Mike, but still the same line of reasoning. They point to problems with getting published, the ivory tower of peer review, the need for degrees and credentials, and claim this is locking out new ideas. To some degree, they are right, it happens. But scientific principles themselves can be applied to critique science itself, that’s what makes it science. Science doesn’t claim to know with certainty, that’s religion, and sometimes it’s “someone on the internet”.