Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Master (Hijacked) who wrote (7571)	6/14/2000 12:46:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9127

Hi Vince. It is with some trepidation that I pursue this point given (a) your frustration level and (b) that I, myself, haven't posted for several days due to the change in thread climate. But here goes... I wish I were more of a scientist so I could make my point better. It is my understanding that just about everything that we call science is technically just theory. I was just talking to a colleague about how gravity is just a theory. Sure, you can drop an apple and see gravity in action but why and how the apple does what it does is just theory. Likewise with evolution, you can find bones that show that creatures evolved over time. As Gina said, evolution is a fact. But like gravity, the why and how are the theory of natural selection, and that is just theory. If a poster objects to evolution being treated as fact but doesn't overtly object to gravity (and the myriad other scientific theories) being treated as fact, what explanation can there be? One possible premise is that the poster is coming at the issue from a fundamentalist perspective. Another is that the thread was talking about evolution, not gravity or any other science, so the broader issue of the poster's confidence in scientific theory, in general, just never came up. I can't think of a third premise. If a million people said that elephants could fly I would not believe it until I saw it myself or had some concrete evidence to prove it. Your response to me suggests maybe door number two, but, given the propensity of message boards to jump to conclusions,I don't think door number one is an unreasonable conclusion to jump to. Karen