Heretic

**Barrett Dorko** · 21-05-2012, 12:19 PM

No doubt, I am a heretic. When Jules Rothstein (then the editor of the Physical Therapy Journal) said, “The findings of this and the previous study may lead to conclusions that (in physical therapy) are almost heretical in nature” I immediately referenced the research here.

In a recent blog post I suggested with a brief conversation that when someone opposes your explanation and is certain about their own ideas that you shouldn’t make an effort to alter their thinking.

In this collection of essays Isaac Asimov addresses the issue of heresy. He says there are two kinds:

Endoheretics – Those who arise from within the professional realm of science.

Exoheretics - Those who come from somewhere else.

Of the two, the former is far well less known, is subject to punishment by orthodoxy and, I gather, is what we’d now call science-based. The latter doesn’t sit still for any questioning of their theory and take their case directly to others who aren’t capable of criticism. Notoriety is what they seek.

I played the part of the endoheretic in the conversation and the “certain” one is probably an exoheretic.

The certainty gives it away every time.

**Barrett Dorko** · 21-05-2012, 02:36 PM

Quiz: Who was the earliest and most well-known endoheretic according to Asimov?

**John W** · 21-05-2012, 02:47 PM

While not technically a scientist, I think Socrates might have been the earliest to challenge orthodoxy with rationalism- and pay with his life.

A contemporary of Socrates and more strictly scientific thinker was Hippocrates, who created quite a stir. But I guess since he actually helped people in a way that was demonstrable he was allowed to continue living.

Am I even close?

Ken Shearer · 21-05-2012, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrett Dorko

Quiz: Who was the earliest and most well-known endoheretic according to Asimov?

OOH OOH, I know. I think, ha.

Ken Shearer · 21-05-2012, 03:56 PM

I really need to get more reading materials. I think this will be one of the first for my Kindle (well Kindle app on iPad).

**Barrett Dorko** · 21-05-2012, 04:30 PM

Ken,

I appreciate your desire to read more good stuff. It's everywhere, and, I try to find the more obscure parts of it and post it here. It makes me look smart.

You may know the answer because I let it slip in the bar last Saturday. We were probably the only two people in Ohio talking about Galileo at that moment.

**John W** · 21-05-2012, 05:26 PM

Well, only about 200 years off. Not bad I guess.

Now that I think about it some more, a Rennaissance era scientist would have to be the one since that's around when formal scientific methodology started. I thought of Galileo- really, I did- but since I'm not very familiar with Asimov I wasn't sure how strict a definition of "scientist" you were looking for.

**Barrett Dorko** · 21-05-2012, 05:39 PM

John,

Not to put too fine a point on it, I think "200" is a little short in the years department.

It's a good question; what makes someone a scientist? To me, it's simply the presence of scientific method in their thinking. Compared to the magical thinking many indulge in, it's far superior in terms of advancing the culture.

Whatever "advancing" is supposed to mean.

Ken Shearer · 21-05-2012, 06:23 PM

Yeah, I remembered Galileo. I agree with the "scientist" definition.

**John W** · 21-05-2012, 06:48 PM

Left a zero off...[muttered as he considers the pros and cons of editing that prior post].

21-05-2012, 12:19 PM	#1
Barrett Dorko Writer and Clinician Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio Age: 61 Posts: 12,900 Thanks: 662 Thanked 1,542 Times in 908 Posts	Heretic No doubt, I am a heretic. When Jules Rothstein (then the editor of the Physical Therapy Journal) said, “The findings of this and the previous study may lead to conclusions that (in physical therapy) are almost heretical in nature” I immediately referenced the research here. In a recent blog post I suggested with a brief conversation that when someone opposes your explanation and is certain about their own ideas that you shouldn’t make an effort to alter their thinking. In this collection of essays Isaac Asimov addresses the issue of heresy. He says there are two kinds: Endoheretics – Those who arise from within the professional realm of science. Exoheretics - Those who come from somewhere else. Of the two, the former is far well less known, is subject to punishment by orthodoxy and, I gather, is what we’d now call science-based. The latter doesn’t sit still for any questioning of their theory and take their case directly to others who aren’t capable of criticism. Notoriety is what they seek. I played the part of the endoheretic in the conversation and the “certain” one is probably an exoheretic. The certainty gives it away every time. __________________ Barrett L. Dorko P.T. www.barrettdorko.com

21-05-2012, 02:36 PM	#2
Barrett Dorko Writer and Clinician Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio Age: 61 Posts: 12,900 Thanks: 662 Thanked 1,542 Times in 908 Posts	Quiz: Who was the earliest and most well-known endoheretic according to Asimov? __________________ Barrett L. Dorko P.T. www.barrettdorko.com

21-05-2012, 02:47 PM	#3
John W Harmless creampuff Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Orleans, LA Age: 48 Posts: 4,672 Thanks: 639 Thanked 997 Times in 444 Posts	While not technically a scientist, I think Socrates might have been the earliest to challenge orthodoxy with rationalism- and pay with his life. A contemporary of Socrates and more strictly scientific thinker was Hippocrates, who created quite a stir. But I guess since he actually helped people in a way that was demonstrable he was allowed to continue living. Am I even close? __________________ John Ware, PT Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists "Nothing can bring a man peace but the triumph of principles." -R.W. Emerson “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.” -The Analects of Confucius, Book 13, Verse 3

21-05-2012, 04:30 PM	#6
Barrett Dorko Writer and Clinician Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio Age: 61 Posts: 12,900 Thanks: 662 Thanked 1,542 Times in 908 Posts	Ken, I appreciate your desire to read more good stuff. It's everywhere, and, I try to find the more obscure parts of it and post it here. It makes me look smart. You may know the answer because I let it slip in the bar last Saturday. We were probably the only two people in Ohio talking about Galileo at that moment. __________________ Barrett L. Dorko P.T. www.barrettdorko.com

21-05-2012, 05:26 PM	#7
John W Harmless creampuff Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Orleans, LA Age: 48 Posts: 4,672 Thanks: 639 Thanked 997 Times in 444 Posts	Well, only about 200 years off. Not bad I guess. Now that I think about it some more, a Rennaissance era scientist would have to be the one since that's around when formal scientific methodology started. I thought of Galileo- really, I did- but since I'm not very familiar with Asimov I wasn't sure how strict a definition of "scientist" you were looking for. __________________ John Ware, PT Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists "Nothing can bring a man peace but the triumph of principles." -R.W. Emerson “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.” -The Analects of Confucius, Book 13, Verse 3

21-05-2012, 03:56 PM	#5
Ken Shearer Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: NE Ohio Posts: 103 Thanks: 17 Thanked 30 Times in 16 Posts	I really need to get more reading materials. I think this will be one of the first for my Kindle (well Kindle app on iPad).

21-05-2012, 05:39 PM	#8
Barrett Dorko Writer and Clinician Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio Age: 61 Posts: 12,900 Thanks: 662 Thanked 1,542 Times in 908 Posts	John, Not to put too fine a point on it, I think "200" is a little short in the years department. It's a good question; what makes someone a scientist? To me, it's simply the presence of scientific method in their thinking. Compared to the magical thinking many indulge in, it's far superior in terms of advancing the culture. Whatever "advancing" is supposed to mean. __________________ Barrett L. Dorko P.T. www.barrettdorko.com

21-05-2012, 06:23 PM	#9
Ken Shearer Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: NE Ohio Posts: 103 Thanks: 17 Thanked 30 Times in 16 Posts	Yeah, I remembered Galileo. I agree with the "scientist" definition.

21-05-2012, 06:48 PM	#10
John W Harmless creampuff Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Orleans, LA Age: 48 Posts: 4,672 Thanks: 639 Thanked 997 Times in 444 Posts	Left a zero off...[muttered as he considers the pros and cons of editing that prior post]. __________________ John Ware, PT Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists "Nothing can bring a man peace but the triumph of principles." -R.W. Emerson “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.” -The Analects of Confucius, Book 13, Verse 3

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode