On 6/12/07, Jim Davis wrote:... > There's no reason that vast areas of our current knowledge CAN'T be wrong > - > but it's very unlikely. To even consider it extraordinary proof will be > demanded. Even Hancock admits that his work isn't "scientific" - he terms > its "advocacy".
I don't know how unlikely it is... as you say, much of what comes about is because of what already exists... wasn't there a big hubbub about the "unbreakable" sound barrier? G[funky o]del? Boyd? (heh) There are techniques that the "ancients" used that we cannot replicate... heck, just a bit ago we figured out what they'd been sticking in some paint, ya know? just a bit ago! I know none of these are examples of The Matrix, but it's pretty important to remember that we don't really know squat, ya know? Frightening, to most, which is why we prefer the "accepted" version our senses perceive. Heck, if so and so said such and such... it's more important than if X says such in such. Not to hard to see a chain of events leading to large areas of knowledge being... um, corrupt? Not as firm as we thought? eh... Don't discount the power of a bunch of people thinking a certain way... It's what is for den... er... -- I love mystery so much, I forget everything. =-P ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create Web Applications With ColdFusion MX7 & Flex 2. Build powerful, scalable RIAs. Free Trial http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJS Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:236475 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
