On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > >> It is unfortunate that these guys demand a verified theory before being >> content to accept the lab results. I think this is a part of human nature >> that many are unwilling to put their reputations on the line unless the >> evidence is iron clad in every dimension. > > > I agree. It is also human nature to crave an explanation before we believe > something. To demand an explanation is unscientific, but it is the norm.
Patience is required, but I don't think it is unscientific to insist on an explanation, otherwise we may as well give up all notions of progress. What is unscientific is to accept and promolgate rationalisations that serve to explain away anomalous findings or problems within theories. > Read the political pundits and you will see all kinds of improbable ad hoc > explanations for events. Medieval philosophers had an explanation for every > aspect of reality, usually symbolic and religious. Nothing in creation was > there by accident or coincidence. Everything had a deeper meaning. It is only a problem when the ways of finding meaning in the world become fixed and rigid. I don't think the answer to the dogma of the Holy Roman Empire or any other social dogma is a world view based on the absence of meaning, i.e chance. Harry
