On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:16 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Arlo said to Mark: > As I said, I could easily fill many posts with examples of how disciplines > have evolved over time within the Academy. I am hard-pressed to find a single > one that has remained unchanged by new ideas for the last one-hundred years. > Can you? > > dmb says: > If a theory lasts for a hundred, it's probably a pretty good theory with many > refinements. The theory of natural selection would be an example of such a > powerful, long-lasting theory. But science is all about discovery. That's why > most of them do it, that's what most experiments are aimed at. I think the > idea that intellectuals are inherently dogmatic is just bizarre. Ripped from > today's news....
[Mark] I guess this would make the theory of the Christian God pretty powerful. > > Gerald Joyce, a chemist and molecular biologist at the Scripps Research > Institute in La Jolla, Calif., said the work “shows in principle that you > could have a different form of life,” but noted that even these bacteria are > affixed to the same tree of life as the rest of us, like the extremophiles > that exist in ocean vents. “It’s a really nice story about adaptability of > our life form,” he said. “It gives food for thought about what might be > possible in another world.” > Dr. Sasselov said, “I would like to know, when designing experiments and > instruments to look for life, whether I should be looking for same stuff as > here on Earth, or whether there are other options. “Are we going to look for > same molecules we love and know here, or broaden our search?” > > Do these guys sound like they're defending dogma? Or do they seem excited, or > maybe even a bit thrilled, at the prospect of new options and new food for > thought? [Mark] These guys sound excited. I wish there were more like them. > > If I were to make a suggestion, I'd go after the money. Funding has become a > corrupting influence in the sciences because the search for truth becomes the > search for profitable knowledge, which isn't the same thing at all. It turns > the church of reason into a whore house. [Mark] Yes, I am with you there in terms of money and corruption. Funding is not mostly for profit in the Universities. I think the search for profitable knowledge is at the dynamic edge of Quality. What people want, what could have more Quality? I do not think that people want things of lower Quality. Sometimes governments do since they are power hungry, whatever keeps them in power is what interests them. All governments. I don't choose one over the other. I am against all authority. > > Cheers, Mark > > > > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
