🚀 go-pugleaf

Don Homuth wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:02:35 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <1e6cn19vt852hpqaibfr9db5ae05mkkono@4ax.com>, Don Homuth wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I arrived at that by long study of "science".
>>>
>>>Study and comprehension being two entirely different things.
>>
>>I guess you haven't learned about the politics, the power struggles, 
>>pride, arrogance, etc that all come into play. The world of science isn't 
>>as pure as we would hope. 
> 
> 
> Nothing is Pure.  Hoping for such a thing is a fool's errand.
> 
> But on a comparative basis, Science is far more Pure than is theology.
> Church Politics is, if anything, even More silly than is academic
> competition.

Also, science can be proven wrong.  If Professor Jones claims that he
has found a fossil and he assigns it to a new species, Professor Smith
can examine the fossil and dispute the interpretation which Professor
Jones made of it.  Try doing that with the number of angels that are
dancing on the head of "a" pin.

> 
> 
>>>>The same set of facts can support different theories.
>>
>>>Entirely as it should be, in that it provides impetus for even More
>>>study and the gaining of More knowledge.
>>
>>The problem is, many typical human traits get involved leading to the 
>>conditions where alternative theories are surpressed.
> 
> 
> Knowledge cannot be suppressed over the long term.  Less so in the
> modern era.  Problem is defining what Knowledge really is.
> 
> 
>>>>For instance, in geology the 
>>>>theory that features were slowly worn over time vs. the theory that they 
>>>>were worn by sudden, large, violent events. 
>>
>>>And whaddaya know -- Both Of The Above are true, depending on
>>>different circumstances.  The Grand Canyon was the result of millennia
>>>of erosion, whilst the Columbia River Gorge happened as the result of
>>>large violent events seriatim.
>>
>>However, it wasn't always like that. 
> 
> 
> Nothing was Always like that, for large values of Knowledge.  That's
> the joy of Science - Truth is held in abeyance while new information
> comes along.  Religion is Not like that.
> 
> 
>>>>>Science holds Truth temporarily, till more and better Evidence for it
>>>>>comes along.
>>
>>>>And those who's careers are based on the old 'truth' will seek to stop 
>>>>the new one. 
>>
>>>That's the Human Condition.  Folks defend things till something new
>>>comes along.  Newtonian Physics works as an approximation sufficiently
>>>to build bridges and buildings, but Relativistic Physics builds
>>>nuclear devices, and Quantum Physics builds microcircuits.
>>
>>It's not just until something new comes along. Something new can be 
>>surpressed for decades or even centuries because of the investment in the 
>>status quo. 
> 
> 
> If it's to become Knowledge, then Science is rather better at dealing
> with such things than is mere superstition.


-- 
  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