-Caveat Lector-
----- Original Message -----
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > > And your characterizations about scientific paradigms are absurd and
> > > totally inaccurate. Scientists make their reputations by squashing
> > > old paradigms, not worshipping them - by establishing new paradigms,
> > > not abjuring them. You've never read a scientific journal, have you?
> >
> > I don't know where you read science journals at but this is just plain
> > wrong. Reputable scientists with new theories are often ridiculed and
> > put down, without even a proper hearing, if their theories do not jibe
> > with those of the people in positions of power in the scientific
> > establishment. When a person is prevented from publishing and getting
> > "peer review" then, in effect, their career is doomed.
Ever heard of the Internet? Ever read a sci.* newsgroup? Ever seen the
discussions on data and theories, the pre-publication collaboration that
goes on constantly, the sharing of results? You're talking about a rigid
controlled environment that no longer exists. Sure, establishments DID
exist, the most flagrant example being Soviet 'science' supporting Lysen-
koism - a doctrine so wrong that it's crippled Russian agriculture for
decades afterwards. But in the New World Order of scattered, wired
researchers, a doctrinaire establishment is rapidly eclipsed. Science
is about *testable*, *workable*, *usable* theories - explanations that
don't work, don't survive. It's remarkably Darwinian.
> > This takes place regularly, and with conviction. People are routinely
> > prevented from publishing when they have something to say which greatly
> > contradicts the current paradigm.
Give us some current examples, please. Present some evidence to support
this contention. WHO is prevented from presenting their ideas? WHO is
so totally censored that they can't even publish on the Net? C'mon,
name some names.
> > With that said, it is an entrenched system like most others and is not
> > likely to change any time soon. Science is not bad, it is good and
> > has enabled us to understand the world around us like never before,
> > and I'm all for the further (well thought out) use of it in the
> > future, and for every possible advance.
Entrenched system? Look at ANY field where there are rapid changes,
where anything published 5 years ago is obsolete, and try to say
"entrenched system" with a straight face. Hint: physics, biology,
astronomy, cognition, archaeology...
> > Furthermore, I don't deny evolution I just think alternative view-
> > points should be allowed a hearing. JUST BECAUSE SOME SCIENTIST
> > SAYS SOMETHING IS SO, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS, EVEN IF A BUNCH OF OTHER
> > SCIENTISTS THINK IT IS TOO. Other theories, or speculations, or
> > notions, as you are wont to call them, should be examined and
> > allowed a fair airing. If they are rubbish the rational will
> > reject them, covering them up, ignoring them, refusing them a
> > hearing, or ridiculing them just makes them seem more attractive
> > to some members of society, most particularly the fundamentalist
> > Christianity that is imbued in conspiracy theory today.
Ever been to a scientific conference? For ever 3 scientists, there
are 5 theories. Those theories supported by the most evidence make
it to the next round of conferences. Alternative notions that aren't
supported by the evidence, that aren't predictive, that aren't test-
able, are dismissed. That's the Darwinian process - your theory's
gotta work better than everyone else's, or it'll be shitcanned.
> > By thrusting it in a corner they unwittingly give it more weight.
> > Why do you think there has always been such interest in the Kennedy
> > assassination? Let the record speak and present all views and let
> > the rational man (or woman) make their decision. The rest, well
> > they'll think what they want to anyway.
Creationism and Lysenkoism and many other doctrines lost out many
decades ago, and only survive now in political realms. One needn't
"fairly consider" a doctrine that's already been shown to be bogus.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
