I consider that very wise Marsha. I call your "There are not the resources to chase down all anomalies and alternative hypotheses" The "Life's too short" hypothesis, but it doesn't win me any friends or arguments ;-) Ian
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:37 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greetings Ham, > > You seem dangerously naive to me because of the ease with which you overlay > an idealized science onto a working science. There are not the resources to > chase down all anomalies and alternative hypotheses. And the answers > reached are often guaranteed by the method, questions and instruments used > for evaluating a theory. How long did it take to correct Newton's physics? > How many hundreds of years to make that correction? From what I've read > there were plenty of anomalies along the way. (In my mind, it is better to > see time and space as static patterns of value, conceptually constructed. > It is a better perspective.) And I hardly think that science as a tool of > politics, profit and the military make it an exalted institution. Science > needs to work better. > > > Marsha > > > > At 12:51 AM 4/29/2009, you wrote: > >> Marsha and Platt -- >> >> >> [Platt]: >>> >>> The Darwinists are hard pressed to explain hobbits. >>> The theory is now challenged from within. >>> Wonders never cease. >> >> [Marsha]: >>> >>> Intelligent Design is not credible science. >>> My concern is that science is blindly followed without an >>> understanding of its danger points, and I am relieved >>> that it is being challenged. It should be properly >>> evaluated and monitored by all citizens. >> >> Intelligent Design is not Science at all. It is an intellectual >> perspective of reality based on man's sensibility to symmetry and order. >> When we say that the universe is intelligently designed, by whose >> "intelligence" are we judging its design? Human beings are rational >> creatures who impute their own intelligence to the objective world because >> of its value (high-quality) to them. >> >> The "wonder" is that you don't realize scientific anomalies like the newly >> discovered hobbit skeletons are constantly being challenged. The method of >> Science is: investigate - test - confirm. When you read the entire article, >> you see that paleontologists, biologists, and archeologists are currently in >> the "testing phase", ruling out possible explanations, such as early >> migration of a more primitive species, reversion to an ancestral lineage, >> genetic mutations or pathological disorders, or island dwarfing. Eventually >> they will have the evidence they need to confirm a conclusion. Until then, >> unlike armchair speculators and journalists, they withhold any official >> pronouncement. >> >> As Stony Brook's anatomist, speaking for the research team, said, their >> investigation has entered "a period of wait and see. ...Someday people >> [will ask], why was everyone so puzzled back then - it's plain to see where >> the little people of Flores came from." That's the way Science works. If >> Science depended on the "evaluation and monitoring" of uninformed citizens, >> reaching objective conclusions would be about as rare as it is on this >> forum. >> >> --Ham >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > . > _____________ > > Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars......... > . > . > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
