> Loren,
>
> I truly appreciate your post and will take all of it to heart. It points
> out a critical aspect of this debate that I had not previously considered,
> and makes clear (to me, at any rate) why Tom Moore and I seem to be talking
> right past each other. I'm not sure that I would concede *quite* as much
> authority as you do to scientific intuition - but then again, you're a
> scientist (I assume), and I'm not. One *does* tend to favor one's own
> discipline. ;-)
Chuck, I finally think I've discovered where the problem lies. I'm not
telling you to research the primary literature because of authority. I'm
not saying that just because these things are primary, they are more
authorative. What I'm saying is that the primary literature is where the
_complete_ arguments are being made and in their proper context.
>
> In that regard, I would add that, IMO, Thomas Kuhn's thinking may also be
> pertinent here. That is, that scientists, as a group, are as inherently
> biased as any other segment of society (yes, including tax accountants),
> and will generally cling to the accepted paradigm to the bitter end.
Some will, many won't. Scientists will change their mind based on
evidence. Sometimes people and scientists wont accept an idea until one
particular bit of information is filled. A prime example is plate
tectonics. One of the last groups of geologists to accept it was the
Mexican geologists, mainly because Mexico didn't fit into Pangea. The
rest of the world seemed to fit nicely. Being Mexican and concerned
about Mexican geology, they naturally resisted it. When Mexico was
explained within a plate tectonic context, their resistance faded.
On the other hand, you certainly have your own paradiym that you are
fighting to the bitter end.
> (Actually, I have stated in the past that I believe that
> _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_ should be required reading for
> all specialists, even though probably 80% of it is balderdash. The other
> 20% is dead on.)
>
> I particularly appreciate your irenic tone. I seem to be constitutionally
> incapable of anything less than bombastic. In other words, I have a birth
> defect; I don't know what Tom's excuse is. ;-)
>
When I'm constantly insulted, I respond thus. If you don't insult me, or
scientists in general, I won't be so harsh.
And I'll say it again, you call me a "priest" or science a "priesthood,"
you are insulting me personally. Continue to do so or imply so will
bring as heated of a response. If you want my tone to be better, I
suggest both you and Jim take my advice.
Tom