> At 12:33 PM 10/16/97 CST+6CDT, chardin wrote:
>
> >the contrary. Thus, I conclude with the same assertions I was making
>
> >when I first signed on. Science will be the better if you all stop
> >treating it like a Holy Cow.
>
> I wonder if you noticed that each and every criticism that you leveled
>
> at science was actually due to its practitioners failing to live up to
>
> the ideals of science. Isn't that a bit like saying Christianity is
> terrible because all these so-called Christians went around breaking
> the ten commandments?
> --
> David McFadzean david@lucifer.com
> Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
> Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/
I think a lot of us agree that:
1. Scientists are human
2. Humans are often driven by emotion
3. There are emotions that are not conducive to good science
4. There are scientists who could use a bit less emotion
on the other hand I hope we can agree that:
1. Scientists over the last 50 years or so have improved their
methodology
2. The discoveries have changed the world in an extreme manner and for
the better,
better meaning:
a. Life expectancy
b. Leisure time
c. Vaccinations
d. Education
e. Food production potential
f. Overall violence - I am not saying we are not violent, just
that we are less likely to be violent than before
g. This list could go on a long time
3. Most data is now open to scrutiny unless motivated by national
defense, or company profit
4. Many of the tools are almost universally accepted (Quantum Physics,
General relativity etc...)
5. Scientific spoofs are less likely to last very long as scrutiny is
more viscious and the speed of communication makes lying very difficult.
( you don't see the anti-arthritis electrocution units about anymore)
i would not accept any scientific theory that failed any test, and was
not replicable by others - for or against the idea.
Sodom