>Written in the true spirit of scientismic fundamentalism.
touche. But could you define this for me. If I'm a member of the club I'd
like to know if I think that's a good thing or not...
> 1) The Big Bang - I have begun wondering whether there has ever been
>any such thing as a big bang.
Me too, and a lot of other scientists as well. It isn't a "truest truth"
or anything...do you have a thery that better fits the data?
> 2) Consciousness programmed entirely from genes.
Straw Man. NOBODY believes this (well, almost nobody...it certianly isn't
the consensus). Consiousness is obviously an emergent phenomena. Genes
encode the basic structure...but the brain is designed to be adaptable. I
don't think we disagree much here...but I'm not sure how it supports your
point.
> 3) I keep on hearing about new, scientifically based studies
>refuting old ones. This has become something of a sport where I look forward
>to finding out what previous study will be refuted next. Butter versus
>margarine, the greenhouse effect versus no greenhouse effect, new gimmicks
>to refute old ones, etc, etc, etc, on and on and on without end.
>refuting old ones.
I'm sorry, do you consider this a weakness of science? I'm not sure what
your point is. First we are condemned for being too dogmatic, then too
fickle.
If you are simply arguing that scientists tend to cocky SOBs...well, yes, I
am. But that's completely independent of ideology ;)
Reed
Reed Konsler
konsler@ascat.harvard.edu