Paul: > Aren't we as scientists supposed to know how to establish > beyond a reasonable doubt who was responsible - including > the possibility of a third party, regardless of whether 90% > of peoples in Turkey or in the U.S. might be offended by the > conclusion?
This is the question Paul. This is why I support your efforts. As you said: > These are 'beliefs', not 'proofs'. Why the heck should we believe that it was some "bearded Muslim dudes in caves" who did this? Because we were told so by some "high" authorities? By the way, I am not contradicting myself: I still claim that you do not need proofs to believe anything. But if we are scientist, dismal or not, what is wrong with questioning these beliefs? Why is it that what Paul is trying to do is wrong or unreasonable to some? Aren't we as scientists supposed to question everything there is that is questionable? Sabri ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
