Not That Simple - an Astronomy Net God & Science Forum Message

God & Science Forum Message
Forums:	Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem


Home \| Discussion Forums \| God and Science \| Post	Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Not That Simple

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on October 10, 2002 15:15:58 UTC

Hi Harv,

I wish it were that simple. If I, a "small head", can question Stafford and Langan, can I question Einstein and Feynman? What criteria should I use?

I think the real lesson for me is that a million heads think better than one. But that goes against our Western habit of seeing progress as the isolated effort of a few heroic individuals, which I'm actually starting to suspect is a misconception anyway. Perhaps the real value in Einstein and Feynman is the success of their ideas rather than their truth. But if success becomes the measure of worth, I'm not ready to accept the idea that Michael Jackson is greater than Bach.

And that brings me back to square one...

Follow Ups:

Yes - kantolfir2 - October 10, 2002 - 18:35 UTC
Aurino is 'not ready to accept M.Jackson is greater than Bach' - quiet - October 11, 2002 - 00:53 UTC

Additional Information

About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy

Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins