On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Levi Pearson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't know what kind of questioning of underpinnings you're > referring to, but from what I've seen, most of the people who get > dismissed or shunned as quacks are not really offering valid arguments > for their views. Attacking the underpinnings of current scientific > models is not a task to be taken lightly, as they have withstood > attacks by the scientific community for a very long time now, and > their strengths and weaknesses are fairly well known. This is not to > say that new ones couldn't be found, but they fall under the category > of 'extraordinary claims', the likes of which require 'extraordinary > evidence' to justify.
And yet these same physicists still manage to get millions of dollars to continue funding "science" and "research" into the ideas coming from string theory--one of the most extraordinary claims of all modern physics. Where's the 'extraordinary evidence' supporting its foundations justifying further pursuit of anything related/derived? That's only one example. Some of the current theories still fall under "extraordinary claims", but pursuit of the extraordinary evidence to support them has all but stopped--they are just accepted. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
