There's on going discussion about what science is, are scientists trustworthy and some stuff about pseudoscience on yours. I'd like to stand in defense for the scientific community and scientific method.
The scientific method is the system that makes people find true statements about the world. It does it by rewarding those who are checking, if what they are saying is true, and punishing those, who are just bubbling what they think and don't check.
It's a lot like Bitcoin, it's based on a game theory. It's driven by incentives that are carefully balanced. The truth gets appreciation by other people getting the same results in experiment. (Digression: @anarchosipiritualist you measure spontaneity with statistics. If sth happens only once in a while, then if you try thousands times, you will catch it.) The false statements get debunked and a person that have made the claim lose their esteem.
Every scientist dream of discovering something enormous, something magical, something that will change people life, something that will put his name next to the names like Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Darwin or Feynman. Primary perception would definitely be such thing if it were true. I'm not a biologist so I can't argue other way than pointing out the scientific community consensus. This is another part of the scientific point of view: If you are not a scientist or you are but on the different field, you need to trust the system. Being right is rewarded, even after many years, and being wrong is punished. So the Biologists who were debunking "primary perception" risk not being among the pioneers of the amazing, new branch of botanics, usually it's easy to make next discoveries while developing a fresh branch. And I bet that most of them desperately wanted it to be true, because that would be amazing, game changing and influential for them. I'm convinced that they were really disappointed when they couldn't repeat an experiment. The only person that stayed there was the author that couldn't stand a failure.
I'd like to mention, that if you are a scientist on the different branch you can get a clue if something might be false when you see a reference to your specialty, that is completely wrong. However this might lead to mistakes, as it was in my case, when I've learned about the famous EM drive. Inventor have described how it works and have made terrible mistakes proving his complete lack of understanding of basic physics. This was my reaction when I've read it:
But it turned out to work! Experiments confirmed it. The mechanism was very different to what the author was describing. This is the only thing that matters in science at the end of the day: Experiment.
And so we land in the topic of pseudoscience. If no other researcher is able to confirm your claims and you reject to accept that, you land in the area of the pseudoscience. Pseudo-scientists attack the scientific community, find followers who usually have nothing to do with science, and engage in the conspiracy theories. Many actual scientists believe in false things but they are bound to reject them once proven wrong. If many years later their idea turn out to be true they will still be credited, like Max Planck, who renounced his idea of quanta for most of the time of his life, saying, that it was a mistake and only a mathematical trick while others took it seriously.
I'd like to refer to @emmanuelokoh post, about the corruption in the scientific community scientist do exactly opposite thing. They are not hiding their result. It's common that if one hold back with publishing their result, someone else will discover this thing independently. Scientist hurry with publishing so it were clinched that it's their own result, they were the innovator. They hide their work only until the publication.
And if one is dishonest it will be eventually proven. There is no incentive to lie in science. Only finding the truth is rewarded.
In this post it's also said that people say things like "We know that x/y/z is true". If they do, they are probably not scientists, they are rather science journalists who are probably the worst thing that have happened to science since the Galileo affair. Popular science have devastating effects on the public perception of it precisely because of the lack of humility and oversimplifications that makes people think that you don't have to dedicate your life to distinguishing what is true and what is not. After all the scientist is just this funny guy on YouTube that says funny things about the time-space being like the balloon. Every one can do that!
Presenting the result without the difficult path full of mistakes that led to it makes people think that the science looks like this. Actual scientists are very different from what you might know from the popular science. They are very humble, they always assume that they are rather wrong (I mentioned Planck) and they are very careful not to go out of their field of competence.


No one has reviewed this piece of content yet