On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:14:35 -0700, malenor wrote:
> On Aug 18, 11:12Â am, mimus
hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:38:24 -0500, PV wrote:
>>
>>> Thomas Lindgren <***********@*****.***> writes:
>>>
>>>> On the other hand, Big Science isn't just a conspiracy theory but a
>>>> social phenomenon quite ripe for a kicking.
>>>
>>> Yes, what with them being so insufferably *right* all the time. Heavens
>>> forbid that science would demand that you can prove your claims. *
>>
>> I'm not sure what exactly "Big Science" is, but there's an awful lot of
>> immature sciences floating around out there, viz. neurology, cosmology and
>> nuclear physics, with plenty of unproven hypotheses and hypothetical
>> models washing around, not to mention some fairly plain frauds, in all
>> three (naming no names, since I simply don't feel particularly pugnacious
>> at the moment, and have fought some of those fights on Usenet before,
>> several more than once), each with their faithful.
>>
>> And history, human and natural (not that I don't consider humans natural),
>> including biography, must be pretty much permanently immature, since
>> irreparable lacks of knowledge simply make it a matter of more and more
>> refined approximation forever.
>
> Out of curiosity, and with nothing better to do, I traced this
> enormous thread back to its source on rec.arts.sf.written.
Was it that hard for you? ah, but wait, you're reading from Google Groups,
so I can see the problem there, although there's still a tree-view, in one
mode of viewing, usually . . . .
> And all I can say is, you people are making much ado over some sci-fi
> that was obviously written for 12-year-old nerds who don't have enough
> knowledge yet of physics to know better yet have marvelous imaginations.
The (sub-)thread you're following up on is about no such thing.
> Why this useless thread was cross-posted over to alt.philosophy, we'll
> never know.
Guilty, m'lud, and in the very post you're following up on, based on
"thread-drift" into a discussion of "Big Science" (whatever that is),
immature sciences, and the frauds that flourish in the "knowledge gaps"
left by those immaturities, all perfectly pertinent to alt.philosophy (see
directly above, and note the previous trimming of the previous discussion
on Velikovsky and derivative lit'rature, although admittedly the thread
should've been retitled as well).
--
See _Laws of Form_, Chapters 1 through 10 and Appendix 2,
first backward and then forward.
