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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (93370)	1/12/2005 8:22:44 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 108807

Good points. (eom)

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (93370)	1/13/2005 1:40:54 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Yes, excellent points. Particularly this one: Thomas Kuhn pointed out that the practice of science is anything but objective and value-free. Scientists become deeply vested in the accepted paradigms of their discipline and fight tooth and nail to reject challenging new ideas, regardless of the evidence (just ask Galileo). Moreover, scientists are not above suppressing findings that conflict with what they believe to be desirable social agendas or goals, e.g., global warming, the theory of evolution, or the existence of a "homosexual gene." I am particularly thinking of archaeology here, and what convoluted lengths archaeologists will go to to try to disprove some new evidence that does not fit in with their assumptions--for example the whole Clovis controversy in North America.