🚀 go-pugleaf

Brent P wrote:
> In article <2tdin1hplc682fs8532tid0fga731qi239@4ax.com>, Don Homuth wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:17:17 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
>>(Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We are discussing how science operates in the real world.
>>
>>Indeed -- the the basis on which I am criticizing Science is the
>>appropriate one.  Theories without a testable basis and evidence don't
>>cut it.
> 
> 
> So archeology isn't a science in your world? 

Archeology is a set of techniques used to gather data.
The science comes in when the archeologist says something to the
effect of "If the ancient inhabitants of Bongo-Bongo-Land were not
engaging in cannibalism, I would expect to find no bones which
show signs of having been butchered."  If he finds any bones with
signs of butchering on them, his hypothesis is falsified and he
can not rule out the possibility that there was cannibalism going
on.  However, if he finds bones with butchering marks on them, he
can't say that there was cannibalism because it could just as
easily have been some burial ritual that involved cutting the
flesh off the bones and burying is somewhere else.  But then
he finds some dessicated feces and changes his hypothesis to
"If they were not eating each other, then there should be no
human myoglobins in this fecal material."  He analyzes the feces
and finds human myoglobins, so he can't rule out cannibalism.
As a result, the theory that led him to think that maybe there
was cannibalism going on is made a little stronger.

>  
> 
>>>Another example for you. Multiple bodies in the solar system appear to 
>>>be warming. Yet, conventional science tells us that warming on earth is 
>>>due to the actions of man and this evidence is ignored in evaluation of 
>>>the apparent warming of planet earth. Anyone who suggests that man may 
>>>not be the cause or may not be the sole cause is met with ridicule and 
>>>insult.
> 
> 
>>Does it occur to you that there are different mechanisms involved?
> 
> 
> More ridicule. keep it up, you only prove my point. 
> 
> The point is how 'science' behaves with those facts. The science of 
> climate doesn't even consider that fact. Those that do are ridiculed. 
> Because we have to believe that astronomy and climatology have little to 
> do with each other. 
>  
> 
>>>>Aliens from the Planet Mongo won't do it.
> 
> 
>>>You just proved my point. Ridicule to surpress any ideas that don't mesh 
>>>with the status quo. 
> 
>  
> 
>>Not suppressing anything at all -- merely noting how things look
>>without a testable basis and Actual Evidence to test with.
> 
>  
> 
>>The rest is guesswork.
> 
> 
> Which is my point. Much of 'science' is guess work. If you don't guess 
> the same as everyone else, your ideas, no matter how much in the way of 
> fact and evidence support them, will be ridiculed. 
> 


-- 
  Has anyone else ever watched C-SPAN cover a three-hour House
  debate on cloning? What a scene. Two hundred six Caucasian males
  in blue suits, white shirts and red ties all declaring their
  all-out opposition against cloning.
  Mark Shields