QUOTE (Rory @ Jul 7 2005, 08:24 AM)
Also, I think the argument that we can't place any trust in men (and women!) of science because of some blunders some long dead scientists made a long time ago is starting to run a little thin. Those scientists didn't even bother seriously testing their theories, and in many cases, they just ignored evidence against them!
I think the argument that we can't place any trust in men (and women!) of science because of some blunders some long dead scientists made a long time ago is starting to run a little thin. - IS STARTING TO RUN A LITTLE THIN!!!
why, those things were considered science fact.
we have become complacent in our acceptance of scientific theory that many theories have been almost religiously accepted as fact.
it breaks down like this...
science suggests a theory:
"i theorise that man evolved from ape-like primates, but i'll have to do some more research to try and confirm this."
common man overhears this at a cocktail party:
"did you hear that? that scientist said we call came from monkeys!"
--this was not an argument against evolution, i'm just making a point--
before you know it, information is being treated as fact while scientists are still refereing to such things as "the theory of ......."
testing a lazer in a perspex chamber of gas in a controlled facility is one thing, but launching shrapnel at high speed into highspeed celestial objects is another...
i'm not so much saying that these people don't know what they're doing so much as they they seem to think making a few calculations based on theories that have not all been conclusivley prooven, in anyway warrents the abandonment of caution in approach to new endevors.
we've become a little too optomistic...
it was only few decades ago that we thought detonating nuclear weapons in out atmosphere would not lead to john wayne getting cancer.