exponent137 said:
It is not good to use the name "crackpottery" for ideas of people, who try to follow the scientific method and they quit when it is proved that they are wrong. This also happens.
While I can't guarantee that no one is ever unjustly called a crackpot, I don't think I can ever remember seeing something or someone I considered to be a crackpot turn out not to be a crackpot later on. Take from that what you will.
exponent137 said:
The scientific method is not so bad also for unorthodox scientists, but orthodox scientists also abuse it for the detriment of the unorthodox ones.
Forgive me, but this is nonsense in my opinion. The scientific method encompasses every legitimate method of determining what happens in our universe. Or, to put it another way, if you can derive valid knowledge about the universe via some method then you can use it in the scientific method. That doesn't guarantee that you come to a valid conclusion of course, any more than using an accepted framework for writing a novel guarantees that you write a good novel.
A scientist, when you get right down to it, is just someone who works to advance knowledge about the physical universe using empirical methods. The 'empirical methods' is important, as it distinguishes a scientist from someone like a philosopher whose work commonly doesn't involve physical things. When someone uses the term 'unorthodox scientist' what they usually seem to mean is:
1. A professional scientist whose work isn't considered valid by the majority of their peers.
2. Someone who used to be a professional scientist, but whose work has been so poor quality or whose beliefs are so antithetical to mainstream science that they are no longer really considered to be a scientist.
3. Someone without professional training attempting to make progress using non-empirical or flawed methods or methods that are far too simple or crude for what they are attempting to measure.
'Unorthodox scientists' are not being 'abused' by the scientific method or anyone using it. They just don't know what they're doing. They are either bad at their job, thus using the scientific method and everything it encompasses badly, or they are not using valid means of finding knowledge about the universe, and so aren't using the scientific method at all.
exponent137 said:
It is not wrong how he thinks. It is wrong if he does not use the scientific method. (But also scientific method is not absolute truth.)
Your argument is flawed. The scientific method is not a simple fact, something which is true or false, it is a collection of methods by which to derive knowledge about the physical universe. It is something which can encompass any valid means of deriving that knowledge and thus new ways of thinking, observing, or measuring are incorporated into it as they are found.
It is similar to cooking in that any method of preparing food is considered cooking, even those that haven't been invented yet. And just like you can prepare a bad meal when cooking, you can come to bad conclusions when using the scientific method.
