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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (23222)	1/6/2004 7:35:24 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793671

Hmmm.... Regarding Michael Crichton, you said, ""He simply said it <consensus> was applicable to political questions" Your reply doesn't reflect that accurately when his POV of politics is taken in context. The 2nd half of the post linked below puts Michael Crichton's view of the "business" of politics in proper context. If his view of consensus is "applicable" & acceptable to you, fine. I agree with Michael Crichton's more negative view of that reality. Message 19661434

To: Lane3 who wrote (23222)	1/7/2004 1:54:17 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793671

Something really clicked when I read that. Science in the 16th and 17th century was revolutionary, and was a product of its time. One of the assertions of the Reformation was that Catholic Councils could be wrong in their conclusions - that truth was not the product of consensus. Galileo was a revolutionary because he refused to renounce demonstrable fact reached by the application of reason by the individual. Science is possible only in a belief system that is individualistic, not communitarian because truth is not something that is reached by compromise. I wonder how much science has been affected by the social inertia of the Academy. Derek