<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The science inside&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mentalindigestion.net/index.php?feed=rss2&#038;p=1237" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mentalindigestion.net/?p=1237</link>
	<description>Science blog of a jobbing scientist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:53:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: SmallCasserole</title>
		<link>http://www.mentalindigestion.net/?p=1237&#038;cpage=1#comment-685</link>
		<dc:creator>SmallCasserole</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:26:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mentalindigestion.net/?p=1237#comment-685</guid>
		<description>I think we need to go about dispelling the myth that we&#039;re machine-like in the lab. I&#039;ve worked with a good many machines, and useful as they are they&#039;d be nothing without me - in scientific terms. Science simply isn&#039;t possible without creativity.

The individuals in the process don&#039;t need to adhere to some idealised, pure objectivity - the physical world does that bit. Granted a degree of objectivity is helpful but ultimately there&#039;s a limit to how long scientists will hold on to an idea which simply doesn&#039;t work, and if an idea or data is useful multiple scientists will be trying it out or replicating it.

The motto of the Royal Society: &quot;Take nobody&#039;s word for it&quot;

(Sorry - I&#039;m vigorously agreeing with you there)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think we need to go about dispelling the myth that we&#8217;re machine-like in the lab. I&#8217;ve worked with a good many machines, and useful as they are they&#8217;d be nothing without me &#8211; in scientific terms. Science simply isn&#8217;t possible without creativity.</p>
<p>The individuals in the process don&#8217;t need to adhere to some idealised, pure objectivity &#8211; the physical world does that bit. Granted a degree of objectivity is helpful but ultimately there&#8217;s a limit to how long scientists will hold on to an idea which simply doesn&#8217;t work, and if an idea or data is useful multiple scientists will be trying it out or replicating it.</p>
<p>The motto of the Royal Society: &#8220;Take nobody&#8217;s word for it&#8221;</p>
<p>(Sorry &#8211; I&#8217;m vigorously agreeing with you there)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
