On Oct 7, 3:35 pm, "Edward K. Ream" <edream...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Edward K. Ream <edream...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Imo, it is impossible to read any of the following and go away with the
> > conclusion that evolutionary theory is anything but plain fact:
>
> One of the most disheartening things about such "debates" is that many
> people fail to realize that science as a social enterprise has no specific
> agenda, except discovery. There are *huge* disincentives for scientists to
> mislead themselves or others. If there were real data contradicting global
> warming or evolution, people would instantly make their career by uncovering
> them.
While I am with you in general, I think your confidence in science
weakens your point rather than stresses it. Science is full of schools
which rather resemble competing tribes than people presenting
contradicting facts, and agreeing to a common mindset might rather
accelerate than impede a scientific career. I suppose you are familiar
with Kuhn's scientific theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions.
Personally, I would place the anthropogenic global warming denial on
the same scale as the "9/11 was an inside job" theory, rather
outlandish but not completely impossible, in contrast to ID and
Holocaust denial.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"leo-editor" group.
To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
