🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:24:34 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article <fnohn118m1nnn6ek999l0cjbqj6b97q9hi@4ax.com>, Don Homuth wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>And any theory that isn't evolution from random molecules is 'theology'.

Describe the Theory you want to discuss in non-superstitious terms.

>That's exactly the point I'm trying to make, that anyone who suggests 
>that there might be a different theory, a different explaination than the 
>accepted status quo is attacked, ridiculed, whatever it takes to supress 
>the ideas, rather than the enlightened ideal. 

There "might be" all sorts of "different" theories.  Are any of them
based on Evidence?

>> Knowledge cannot be suppressed over the long term. 
>
>Define 'long term'. Some concepts easily go on for hundreds of years, 
>some for thousands. Belief is powerful thing.

In the modern era, more than a decade.

>> Less so in the modern era.  Problem is defining what Knowledge really is.
>
>More so 'long term'. 

Not really.  Time was when a coterie of True Believers could have
things pretty much to themselves.  But given the free flow of
Information, that's about impossible any more.

>Science does not have the 'open mind' you claim it does. It's populated 
>by similiarly closed minded humans and people who have a vested interest 
>in the status quo.

If you wish to describe the Human Condition, have at it.  But if you
wish to describe Science, you are missing the point.

> Challenges are dealt with in a similiar manner much of 
>the time. You can have a mountain of facts and evidence that supports 
>your theory and still be laughed out of career. 

Not for long.  Plate tectonics, for example, went from Laughable
Theory to Revealed Truth in a relatively short time.  Hegel described
the process you describe as a dialectic -- and even those take time.
It's not a problem, save for those who want to whine about it.

>Just look at the burden of proof difference required for something that 
>fits conventional thought and something that doesn't.

The burden of proof fits Any theory that comes down the pike.  That
would be all of them.  Propose something new and you'd best have some
evidence to prove it out.

> If it fits 
>conventional thought but the evidence is thin it's not even given much of 
>a second glance. Have a 100 times that in volume and quality for a theory 
>that throws convention on it's ass and expect to still be called a kook. 

And this is a problem precisely How?

When Einstein challenged the Newtonians, we had Michaelson and Morley
coming up with Experimental Evidence that didn't fit the conventional
wisdom.  Lowered Nowe folks tried to make it do so, but within a short
time it was thrown out.  The phlogiston theory of fire worked wondrous
well until the scientific experimenters tossed it out.

Do that with a superstition having No experimental evidence, if you
can.

>> If it's to become Knowledge, then Science is rather better at dealing
>> with such things than is mere superstition.
>
>The only variable is the amount of power wielded by those trying to 
>surpress it.

Nope.  the main variable is the amount of Actual Evidence.

> The religious types have simply been more effective because 
>they have often controlled governments and militaries throughout the 
>centuries and used them to enforce religious belief. 

The times they are and will be a-changing -- and it's going to happen
more rapidly in the future.