To Dick, or to any of Dick's acolytes:

You seem disgusted with the current scientific process: any currently accepted claim is thought of as "It's the best thing so far" and is treated as true until something better comes along. (as Harv said, trial and error.) What's wrong with this process? As long as one recognizes that scientific truth is not 100% accurate, trial and error is the only way I can see to progress.

And I very much doubt any serious scientist believes "This is all there is, science has reached its pinnacle of accuracy." I mean, quantum physics and relativity can't both be right, for example, but scientists don't say "We might as well give up, I'm burning my Phd on quantum physics right now." Do you think they should? Or should they use quantum mechanics and relativity to the extent of their reach for the time being until someone comes out with a newer, more accurate theory?

You've spent a lot of time attacking the by guess and by golly method, but what is your alternative? Maybe I missed it.

• Let's think about it a little! - doctordick - July 27, 2001 - 19:54 UTC
  • How about being specific? (nt) - stormcrow - July 27, 2001 - 20:08 UTC
    • I thought that was specific! - doctordick - July 27, 2001 - 23:41 UTC
      • Humor me - stormcrow - July 28, 2001 - 00:42 UTC
        • Use their heads for something besides paperweights. - doctordick - July 28, 2001 - 15:31 UTC
          • A good standard, but guesswork is always involved - stormcrow - July 28, 2001 - 18:10 UTC
            • Every one of them! - doctordick - July 29, 2001 - 12:41 UTC
• My strictly personal opinion - aurino - July 27, 2001 - 21:26 UTC
  • You just described the scientific process - stormcrow - July 28, 2001 - 00:57 UTC
    • I think Aurino said it right! - doctordick - July 28, 2001 - 15:42 UTC