> Experimentation has shown that when we have a theory which is not
> correct and we receive new information, the new information is seldom correcting at all, but we
> tend to "elaborate" on an already incorrect theory. Thus, some
> scientific theories become more and more bizarre as new information
> is added. This is discussed at some length in Paul Watzlawick's book
> "How Real is Real." I find this very interesting as I see some
> theories in science (which I think to be incorrect) being elaborated
> on more and more. The elaboration does not convince me that they are
> right by any means, though the presentors think it should. Hardin
> >
I think a good example of this is the picture we get of early man based
on the fossil record. The idea of evolution (change) is sound. But the
conclusions that we evolved from... A B or C strikes me as amusing. The
problem is that there are only some places on earth where fossils tend
to be found due to weather, geography, etc. Yet I find scraps of
assumptions in many social science texts that seem to arrive at views
about humans based on these very imcomplete records.
Perhaps that time traveling alien might find our ancient fathers to be
something other than than a "Naked Ape"... with all the baggage that
entails.
I am not trying to sway anyone here. Just that this is only one example
of how science *might* lead us astray.
sway astray... I like the sound of that
Marie