[donh]

thanks for your comment. My point is not to argue for ID - since I'm not an ID person. My point was to argue that scientists are just as human as anyone else - and subject to poor thinking. I was surprised that not a single person read and commented on Dr. Lindzen's article in today's WSJ. But none of us like to examine things that point to our faults - myself included.

Science is not a foible-driven kuhn-ian knitting circle, nose-in-the-air critiques by non-scientists to the contrary notwithstanding. Science is the most powerful intellectual solvent ever known because it formalizes, and raises to a high art, filtering out individual conceits and errors through peer-reviewed publication, followed by field verification by a largely critical and resistant audience. Inumerable feeble critiques of science based on pop psychology have come and gone for centuries, science remains, because, at the end of the day, science pays intellectually and tangibly profitable dividends and pop psychology pays lip service. And this "outsider" theory of science isn't significantly borne out by experience. Ideas matter when they pass muster in the scientific obstacle course, not when some knight on a white horse comes thundering in with a spanking new idea.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Again, perhaps if you read the article before commenting this would actually make sense to you.

best, ampu