So much of what Nicholas wrote is
ranting and raving that I am not
presuming he really believes the
inconsistencies and poor structures
of his arguments. There is a presumption
that his social improvements cause better
science but then he does not credit folks
like me who worked and advocated for
social improvements. In fact, he implies
"rich white guys" have been the problem
1) He implies "changes" are all yielding improvements but they are not self-evidently so.
In the tradition of Aristotle, maybe we
should just accept his word on this. I don't.
2) Nicholas' reference to "rich white guys" is
just more of his pathology showing through,
plus his ignorance of the demographics of
science in history, and the causes of bad
science (which include racism against whites).
3) His comparisons between a trial and science
display an ignorance of "apples and oranges" where
he does not appear to know either fruit very well.
Nicholas: "That's accurate. This is not like, and should not be compared to, a trial."
Then he proceeds to compare it to a trial.
Nicholas: "Good scientific theories (like relativity) will prove themselves by successfully predicting phenomena, so information is constantly coming in. In a trial, all of the information should have already been collected and the lawyers don't have a chance to "predict" future findings or events."
When scientists debate a theory's applications,
each step (data gathering, instrumentation, procedure) must be examined as evidence. There
is an information gathering stage and an interpretation stage. They don't do all their
work around the incoming data stream; nor does
the information-gathering stage have permanent funding.
Nicholas: "A new theory is basically presumed to be wrong until it can prove otherwise."
Mike: Your point being?
"There is another thing that's different about science, not everybody gets equal participation.."
Mike: How is that different about science?