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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (12142)	5/5/2002 7:18:12 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Just because some scientists may be corrupt, it doesn't change the nature of science any more than Andrea Yeats or Susan Smith change the nature of motherhood. Science is still about provability and religion and pseudoscience are about faith.

To: average joe who wrote (12142)	5/6/2002 9:16:29 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Even Curie was ridiculed for the experiments that led to the discovery of penicillin. Curie (and her husband) were investigating radioactive substances - off-hand, I think it was radium, or maybe polonium, which they discovered/isolated. Fleming discovered penicillin, initially by accident. Oh, and AFAIK neither were ridiculed. Both were widely respected scientists, although Curie attracted some disapprobation because she was female. Small wonder that you have little faith in science. OTOH, whichever source you learnt science from does deserve ridicule. We accept evolution without ever witnessing one successful mutation. We therefore accept evolution on our observation of the fossil record and a big dose of faith. Wrong. Natural mutations have been observed - the classic pepper-moth study comes to mind. Mutations have been caused and observed - typically on fruit flies or other short-lived insects. Also, if not by evolution - a slightly unnatural selection, perhaps <g>, how did you think antibiotic-resistant bacteria are becoming prevalent? Is selective breeding not reliant on evolutionary technique - you don't need to understand it, any more than every pitcher needs to be able to accurately explain gravity, just use it. Finally, evolution can successfully explain every fossil we can find - there aren't any exceptions. Oh, sure, there are gaps where we have to extrapolate, but no contradictions. So, it predicts, and it describes; the theory is logical; it works in practice; and we can see it working, if we're prepared to have patience. And it's scientific - open theory, open results, up for challenge... I think most individuals with those ten traits would be successful in almost whatever they chose... but successful scientists additionally require intelligence.