[at-l] Voodoo Science.

[stephensadams@hotmail.com (Steve Adams)]

William, Grey Owl,

Reference your posts, most recently that of William the Turtle, dated
12-10-02.

"Science often speakes (sic) before it has all the facts.  Or before it can
have all the facts ..."   And, "Sometimes science does not understand why X
works with Y and not with Z and they may lay it too the wrong reason ..."

The Scientific Method is probably essential.  Its rigor tends to keep the
pursuit of knowledge honest and efficient, over the long run.  Its
methodology considers what is known and makes projections using accepted
concepts.

The Scientific Method, in operation, doesn't acknowledge that we will know
more tomorrow; new data will be available and new concepts will have
emerged.  All that is speculative.  Speculation doesn't withstand the rigor
of the Scientific Method very well.  It is not much used, except to guide
where to look for "larger" answers.

An inherent limitation of the Scientific Method is currently apparent, I
believe, by the recent revelation/acceptance, that "Junk DNA" may actually
have a purpose.  What scientific arrogance; if science doesn't understand
it, it's junk.

Steve

P.S.  Now, I'm off to raid the neighbor's chicken coop.

["(W)e should ... run off and rub ourselves with chicken s**t and feather so
that we can fly ..."  I didn't misread that, did I?]

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail