> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:17:50 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
>
>
>
>
> yahoo.com> wrote:

>>On Sep 9, 11:14 am, male...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> On Aug 18, 11:12 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. 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. Why this useless thread was cross-posted over to
>>> alt.philosophy, we'll never know. But I think a fanciful duology like
>>> that, premised as it was on Immanuel Velikovsky's nonsense from the
>>> 1950s, can at least tweak the fascination of youngsters and in the
>>> long run create more interest in science and less fascination with
>>> fantasy, although an element of fantasy must always remain in even the
>>> most steadfastly materialist physicist.

>

>>> These two books, authored by James P. Hogan, should be limited to a
>>> much younger crowd, and anybody older than say 25 who thinks to
>>> critique them seriously in physicist terms is wasting his time and our
>>> time.- Hide quoted text -

>

>>> - Show quoted text -

>

>>Velikovsky was silly, but questioning conventional science is
>>rational.  The scientific bureaucracy is just as incompetent and
>>corrupt as any other bureaucracy: religious, political, military etc.

>
> Questioning conventional science is rational BECAUSE there is a
> scientific "bureaucracy" which "is just as incompetent and corrupt as
> any other bureaucracy."
>
> No. Questioning conventional science is rational because science in
> itself is falsifiable.
>
> And besides, those "bureaucrats" of science will eventually die out,
> budding young scientists with their own ideas and original thoughts
> will ignore as usual the pronouncements of the fuddy-duddies who
> thought they knew everything. While it is true that the "bureaucrats"
> will try to inculcate and brainwash the youth with their own vision,
> they will acquire a certain level of admiration but they will not gain
> their goose-stepping dogmatic allegiance. And thus, science advances.
>
> One more thing about the OP of this thread, Raymond Speer. If he is
> older than 25 and still perusing used bookstores for entertaining
> hardcore science fiction, then he is wasting his free time on what is
> mostly garbage. And to top it off, he comes to usenet giving his own
> critique of this garbage.
>
> The only decent sci-fi I have found was by author Greg Bear, but that
> was a few years ago, and now upon returning to it I even find those
> books to be peurile pap. Bear is great at inculcating a sense of
> scientific wonder in his readership, but nowadays the only wonder I
> get is wondering what I saw in his writing in the first place.
> --
>
> " If I had remembered that the name 'Galt' appears
> in one of her books, I would have chosen a different
> name for my character."
>
> Stephen R. Donaldson, "Gradual Interview"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -