Replies

"Scientists seek the best tools to help them comprehend the reality of the natural world in which they live. To the extent that a theory is useful, it will be used. To the extent that a theory is not useful it won’t be used."

You haven't been inside a science department lately, have you? You haven't been inside a science classroom lately, have you? I'm sorry...I'm just laughing my eyes out at your post. Science teachers (and academics in general) lord "theories" over students as if they were cast-in-stone facts. There is no discource. There is no humility.

Inside the academic halls, it's a struggle for money, power, and prestiege. If you've spent 23 years building your theory, you don't abandon it easily. You're aware of the whole social contruction of truth theories from sociology, I trust? Intelligent people tend to hyperconform to one another and staunchly defend their pet theories -- especially where rewards are in place (money, prizes, government posts). You say that scientists are immune to all of these things. I'd like to say "don't make me laugh" but you already have...

The concept of scientist as the thoroughly dispassionate disinterested observer and recorder does not fit any university within the known universe...

So many errors, so little time...

Without bothering to call attention to all of your odd assertions, I'd urge you to read up on what a "theory" is before dismissing them as nonsense. You may be amazed to find that bridges, houses, airplanes, computers, electricity, etc are all predicated upon "theories."

Intelligent people tend to hyperconform to one another and staunchly defend their pet theories

Oh what a wonderful world it would be if only stupid people ran the show? Huh?

The concept of scientist as the thoroughly dispassionate disinterested observer and recorder does not fit any university within the known universe...

I'd agree with your statement had you not left out the word, "creationist" between "known" and "universe." See, there's this little process known as peer review that you apparently are unaware of. oh, why bother.

The concept of scientist as the thoroughly dispassionate disinterested observer and recorder does not fit any university within the known universe...

Creationism vs. Evoulution aside, I could not agree with you more. Nothing is more pathetic than watching an old PI (principal investigator for the non-academics; the head scientist) defend his tired old theories, around which he has devoted a lifetime, against new theories and discoveries that come about as a result of new technology and evidence. It has happened to me (getting screwed by the old PI, I mean). Scientists are only human, and rather sheltered ones at that.

Now, back to the discussion, if you substitute "old PI" for creationist, and "new theories and discoveries" for evolutionist, one begins to see that the same problems persist in both camps. Creationism has the problem that there are no new theories, only 2000 year old ones.