Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
...Should scientists NOT develop working hypotheses while gathering more data?...
|
I don't see any problem with sceientists developing anything, working or not working, as hypotheses...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
...Take for example, evolution. Few scientists doubt that organic evolution is real. But constraints on collecting unambiguous, irrefutable data will likely result in logical ambiguities remaining in the theory.? ...
|
What ever the constraints on collecting the data are, BEFORE that data (lame or unambiguous it may be) should then be put to KNOWN litmus tests to be sure that what's being taught as "theory" is grounded in the substantial foundations of science, not mere conjecture being passed off as foundational science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
...Should the theory of evolution not be taught? ...
|
IMO, that genie has been out of the bottle for too long of a time to dismiss it as a hoax or puff...but, every so often, a little piece of litmus paper comes to light proving that there are a few kinks in the "evolutionary armour" of facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
...Should scientists not use it as a framework for understanding life because it is not irrefutably proven to be true in all instances?...
|
Scientists should use it as an adjunct to other teachings, not as the only "true" teaching...faith and fact can equally be presented if the presenter him/her-self doesn't favor one over the other...much easier to type and say than to practice though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
...Let's say that the scientists eventually gather sufficient data to disprove the human cause of global warming. Does that mean the scientists wasted time and money gathering data?...
|
No. What it means is they did, and will continue to do, what scientists are suppose to do. The real question is: "Who is to pay?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
...We're all taxpayers and citizens of some country or other. We are the folks who ultimately pay for these things. Is it a waste of money? Who decides which projects are a waste of money? B
|
Waste of money? Each project is a petri dish waiting for the right "swab" to grace its "enclosure" - if you will. The waste of money part is really in the eye of the beholder. What is sacred to one is a waste to another. That argument will continue ad-infinitum, ad-nauseum...
The real litmus test for a project's validity in the world of science should be: No "government" handouts...let private industry do the "R & D" - the government has preverted the process so bad now that all the press has to do now is look around, just a little, and they'll find dozens of illogically-preceived projects just waiting for someone to take a base-ball bat to it, and its souce of funding, in a public forum.
Ex-Senator William Proxmire (D-WI.) made these things famous with his "Golden Fleese Awards" back in the 70s and 80s, before he "retired" before the onset of the Congressional Banking Scandal (He was the chair of the Senate Banking Committee at the time).
Talk about your timing...
Is all government funding of science projects full of fraud? I'm not saying that it is...but there should have been safe-guards in place where the public's money is concerned...and until that situation is corrected and vigorously, but fairly, enforced, I say "Stop the bleeding."
And, quit putting out press releases telling everyone on the planet that a cochroach stubbed its antenna - so IYOO, that little incident means that "Global Warming" is as close to being a terminal reality as Al Gore is to remaining a spokespersons (intended pluralization) for the "Carbon-Big-Foot-Prints-Tree-Hugger-Flower-Power-PETA" panic crowd.
Gawd knows he needs to be on TV and Radio more now than at any time in the past...