JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that best
fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?
Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you to
sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because it
means that it is not all objective.


Newton needed no consensus, nor did Einstein.

Newton made an observation and then he had to gain consensus from his
fellow scientists to accept his observation.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that
best fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?
Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you
to sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because
it means that it is not all objective.


Newton needed no consensus, nor did Einstein.

Newton made an observation and then he had to gain consensus from his
fellow scientists to accept his observation.



And, if one scientist happens to be correct, but nobody else understands,
then he's wrong? Is that what you think?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news


And, if one scientist happens to be correct, but nobody else understands,
then he's wrong? Is that what you think?


Nope. It'll just take more hard data to convince the majority of the other
scientists. It would be unreasonable to throw out one idea for another
without evidence supporting the change.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that
best fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?
Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you
to sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because
it means that it is not all objective.

Newton needed no consensus, nor did Einstein.
Newton made an observation and then he had to gain consensus from his
fellow scientists to accept his observation.



And, if one scientist happens to be correct, but nobody else understands,
then he's wrong? Is that what you think?

That is what is called accepted science. And, that is how the system
works. It isn't right but it is pervasive in the scientific community.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that
best fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust
the explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with
this objective approach to understanding our world?
Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you
to sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because
it means that it is not all objective.

Newton needed no consensus, nor did Einstein.
Newton made an observation and then he had to gain consensus from his
fellow scientists to accept his observation.



And, if one scientist happens to be correct, but nobody else understands,
then he's wrong? Is that what you think?

That is what is called accepted science. And, that is how the system
works. It isn't right but it is pervasive in the scientific community.



Poor Albert. His ideas must be fluff.