Previous Next Index Thread
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk writes: >In article <email@example.com> > firstname.lastname@example.org "david l burkhead" writes: > >> In article <email@example.com> Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk writes:> >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> > >> >Again, again, no one has suggested that laymen were the driving force >> >behind any revolution in knowledge. It's individuals who make them, >> >but the last people to recognise the truth are the professionals. >> >> Please cite some examples. You keep making this claim and it is, >> patently, wrong. > >Take any revolution in any field of knowledge - one where the basic >textbooks had to be re-written - and you will see its truth. Why do >you find it so hard to accept? None of us finds it easy to have to >change our minds from what we learnt at school or college. "Why do [I] find it so hard to accept?" Because it's wrong, plain and simple. You keep making this same assertion and it's as wrong now as when you first made it. I ask for examples and you repeat the same assertion. Also, _you_ may find it difficult to change your mind once you get the bit in your teeth (and your posts on this group tend to confirm that impression) regardless of whatever facts might contradict your beliefs, but don't project your inflexibility onto others. >The extraterrestrial cause of the K/T and other extinctions is now >generally accepted -- except by some professionals. I used to know >a number of pre-revolution (1967) geologists; even those who >accepted the change never adapted to it. The resistance to past Halleluiah! An example! Will wonders never cease. However, this example, like so many other things, shows that you don't know what you're talking about yet again. Many geologists consider the impact hypothesis quite probable but the evidence is far from conclusive and there are other hypotheses that fit the data fully as well--in some ways better. For instance, fossil records show declining populations of dinosaurs long before the KT boundary. While soundings show a buried crater at something close to the right level to be the KT "smoking gun" it hasn't been accurately dated yet. OTOH, the Deccan traps in India _have_ been dated to the right period, producing a definite smoking gun for the volcanic hypothesis. Sure, there are geologists who don't accept the impact hypothesis. That's because the issue hasn't been settled yet. >revolutions is usually forgotten; there was intense opposition to "Forgotten"? And you with gifted clairvoyance were able to ferret out "forgotten" things? >Relativity. I knew a highly respected physicist (Prof. Alfred Hah! You fell for it. I'd hoped you'd bring up relativity as one of the "revolutions" not accepted by the "establishment." It's a popular case, and completely, totally wrong. Sure there were a few disgruntled types who never liked it (much like Einstein himself never fully accepted quantum theory--a theory he helped create), but it was swiftly accepted by the physics community at large because it explained the available data better than anything else around. Sure, there was criticism. Folk questioned the conclusions, the observations that led to them, and the methods used to get from one to the other. However, that's the whole point of science. It's part of the process. It's the means by which solid theories that flow from the available data are separated from the crackpot nonsense. If your theory can't stand up to that kind of scrutiny then it's almost certainly a piece of fluff, not worth the paper it's printed on.