sorry if it is a duplicate Eva ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I passed it on again, I hope you won't mind, those people seem to have time to read every article... I just respond to a few things: (Mike H.) > > It was methane that was detected on Pluto and in the tails of comets, > according to Gold. > methane is the very simplest CH compound. I belive astronomers found more complex stuff than that, but not any longer C chains. We have an astrochemistry department, I could ask... > I know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis and the sentence > quoted does not demonstrate such a confusion. Your reader also totally > misses my point. People like Wegener and Gold are not merely told their > data or their hypotheses are wrong - they are pilloried and vilified for > decades. Certain metaphors or images or ideas come to dominate science and > any contradiction is met with almost hysterical denial at times. This kind > of behaviour is a clear indication of of the non-rational in science, which > was the point I was trying to make. The non-rational is particularly > important when it comes to creating original ideas - creativity is a > marriage of intuition, emotion and rationality. Time after time, if you > read the history of science and technology, ideas come to people as > epiphanies at the most unusual and unexpected moments, not as a conscious > result of systematic and conscious analysis of the data. The patterning > typically happens in the unconsious. Poincare famously had one of his > most important insights, quite unbidden, as he stepped off an omnibus, for > example, though admittedly that was in mathematics, not science. > Theories seem to surface when there are enough data/ information is hanging around. Doesn't matter how suddenly an idea surface, in the majority of cases if that particular chap hadn't see the light, there was somebody else quite near to it. (Wallace? start with w anyhow) In a very few cases some individuals indeed are "ahead of their time". Which means, that there are insufficient data around to convince the science establishment, which yes, can be a bit slow moving. However, relying on accumulated data, peer review etc seems to be a very good method (best) of working so far. Remember, the vast majority of ideas DO turn out to be wrong - which also is part of the constructive database identifying the areas where there is no need to look again. The old greeks had some astounding speculative ideas about dialectics and materialism, just to mention the two that impressed me most... but they also had a million of other such speculative ideas that did not work out... They had no chance of separating the valid from the wrong, they had no sufficient data, sufficient tools. > As an example of a theory which did not arise from the data, take Darwinian > evolution. Historians of science accept that Darwin got the idea from > classical economics, from reading Malthus, if I remember correctly. Then > when he went on his famous voyage on the Beagle, the biological data fell > into alignment with the Malthusian idea in his mind. It is not even a true > theory, by the way, it is a tautology. But it is politically incorrect to > say in the hearing of biologists who are inclined (metaphorically) to stone > you for it. > I believe there was a chap around that also had the same general idea as Darwin. I also believe that his main stimuli for his theory came from his travels to sepaated habitats. Also his attempts to adapt his theory to human society was a complete failure. but let's see the skeptics response on this one, they are very much into Darwin... I can't figure why would the oil industry shun Gold's ideas - they are not interested in the science establishment, only in money, and new technology is not even involved. Eva [application/octet-stream is not supported, skipping...] ----- End of forwarded message from /DD.msdos=PSCNHQ$/LAURIER2$[EMAIL PROTECTED] -----
