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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (52837)	10/18/2002 8:16:20 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Zonder, The Earth sciences are very conservative and not very open to new theories. Plate tectonics, now a generally accpeted principle, was a crackpot theory 40 years ago. This despite the fact that every kid in the world noticed how nicely South America fit into Africa :-) John

To: zonder who wrote (52837)	10/18/2002 9:18:14 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

He didn't seem like a crackpot in the article Thanks for posting that article, zonder. I had not read it, and I have been following the subject for quite a while. His theory just makes more sense than any other I have seen for the origin of oil. I took College Geology before "Plate Tectonics" and remember the complete switch by Geologists when it came into fashion. This question and answer from the interview sums up one reason I am so skeptical about "Environmental Science. " >>>Don't people tend to overtrust what they are taught are facts? Yes, absolutely. Not only overtrust, but they publish whenever they have a positive result for an accepted theory, and if they have a negative result they suppress it, or it gets suppressed by the referee.<<<