Replies

It was supposedly an example of a time science was wrong. I think it's fair to label an assertion that something was wrong an "anti-something" assertion. But no big deal.

That Newton was wrong - and that Hubble was right - were both big deals to Einstein.

Scientists argue amongst themselves all the time and we all benefit from it. Ditto for politicians, philosophers, mathematicians, Joe-six-packs, etc.

Scientists calling an argument from a non-scientist (e.g. mathematician, philosopher, theologian, etc.) ipso facto "anti-science" is unseemly in a country founded on freedom of speech.

Besides, if we were to build a tree of inquiry like the tree of life - it would become obvious science branched from philosophy and that mathematics is closer to its philosophical roots.

That Newton was wrong - and that Hubble was right - were both big deals to Einstein. Scientists argue amongst themselves all the time and we all benefit from it...

I'm sorry, but I don't know what your point is. I just meant that it's no big deal to me whether we call your statement "anti-science" or not. As for the rest, I'm not interested in getting into a discussion of philosophy and free speech. All I'm saying is that the reclassification of Pluto is not a case of science being "wrong."