Huizenga conclusion

There isn't anything new to report about the book, so now I turn my attention to some observations about the book as a whole. With respect to that, it appears that the author considers himself to be a protector and defender of science. He mentions procedures over and over. He questions other's integrity at times, while insisting upon high standards of proof. He seems to doubt the wisdom of entrepreneurial motivations vis a vis the practice of science. He believes science is a collective activity as opposed to an individual one. To a certain extent, he may even be right.

But what if he is wrong? To me, this raises a question: does science serve man, or does man serve science? It appears to me that Huizenga believes the latter, while I am of the opinion that it should be the former. Should two scientists be sacrificed on the altar of scientific correctness? All because they may have made some procedural errors? All because they may have succumbed to the temptation of ambition and overreached a little too much? To the contrary, I believe. Without an incentive, even if it does appear to be greedy and self serving, the advancement of science may actually be impeded. As for procedural errors, even though this is to be taken very seriously, I do think that the potential of this discovery was so great, that a little leeway could have been granted. I do not see the justice or ruining F&P over some of what I would consider, some minor errors. If the course of time shows that F&P were on the right track, how does this serve justice, and how does it serve man? It would appear to me that real harm could have been done, all in the name of serving science.

Is this over protectiveness of science really necessary? What about the things that could be as opposed to merely the things that are? I am not suggesting some sort of "faith based" science. On the other hand, I don't support any notion that belief in something can't have a place in science. As a matter of fact, faith may not be avoidable. No matter how rational one may well be, ultimately you are driven and motivated by what you believe. If you are driven by skepticism, you may well be inclined to reject the possibility of things that may not seem possible based upon what is known today. An example: Christopher Columbus. If he didn't believe that the Earth was round, would he have suggested a course of action that could have been fatal for him, if, by any chance, he was wrong?