Stormbringer's Thunder

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen There is a connotation of science  where scientists gather information, make a hypothesis, test it, revise as necessary, it becomes a theory, and eventually a law. Somewhere along the line the thing gets put out to pasture if the facts are recalcitrant. Such a view is not only naïve, but ignores human nature. Scientists are human, after all.  Scoffing at new material One expression I have encountered when discussing the origins controversy is that "science corrects itself". Aside from the reification fallacy ( science  is not a living thing, but scientists may correct themselves), this has been shown to be false — often in areas of technology. Great inventors were laughed at, such as Robert Fulton and the Wright brothers. It was said that if people move too fast (aside from dangerous acceleration, change of direct, and deceleration), they would have physical problems or even die. Scoffers were silenced by results. Some people attribute this ridi

Buon giorno. I like an argument as well as the next guy. No, not the kind that we have now , with put-downs, contradictions and vindictiveness. The kind I like is the "classical" argument, with presenting positions, proofs, rebuttals and the like in a structured environment. These are stimulating and have intellectual value. It is indeed unfortunate that those have to be scheduled and do not happen spontaneously. Modern arguments are a waste of time, especially in certain situations. With the boss With the police With your spouse With your children With your spouse's children And so on, and so on... The worst argument is with Satan. That's right, you heard me, Poindexter! What, you think you've never argued with the devil? Well, when you know what is right and you talk yourself out of doing what is right, that is one place. Another is when someone is trying to convince you to do something that you know is wrong when you already know what is right