On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 10:10:16 -0500 (EST), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Does the word "prevailing" mean that different scientists can reach >> different conclusions based on identical scientific calculations? > Case in point: "Global Warming." > The facts tend to show that the earth's average > temperature is about .5�F warmer today than it was 100 years > ago. The conclusions drawn from that simple observation run > the gamut from shrugs about a natural and expected cyclical > swing to near hysteria that the end is near for mankind due > to rising oceans, etc. > Then again our views of "prevailing" scientific > conclusions come from a media prone to sensationalism. > Sure, there's a document advocating the theory of global > warming signed by 1000 scientists. How many signed because > it was the "politically expedient" thing to do (imminent > grant renewal)? How many were contacted who refused to > sign? How many were never contacted because their views > were already known? > Perhaps "prevailing" science is simply that which is > politically useful. Any so-called science which is governed by nothing more than prevailing opinion and belief is neither politically nor scientifically useful. Unlike laws and jury verdicts, scientific facts cannot be established by a simple vote. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
