Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!ethan
From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: how much science?
Message-ID: <9@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 10:35:57 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.9
Posted: Fri Apr 12 10:35:57 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Apr-85 01:18:39 EST
References: <1448@hao.UUCP> <182@spp1.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 45

> 
> If he were correct, then any part of currently accepted science that has
> to be tossed out should go with good riddance because its wrong. Science
> cannot afford to close its books and say that all that is accepted at any
> point in time is beyond refutation.

Quite correct.  *However* the real point here is that a tremendous amount
of modern science would have to be disproved (or at least have considerable
doubt cast on it) in order to take Lief seriously.  Sounds like a big job
to me.  

>  
> Radioactive dating and geological strata have in fact come under attack in
> recent years by scientists that aren't just spouting off. If our basic
> premises upon which these methods and beliefs are legitimately disproved,
> what would be the good of clinging to a lie?

Again, quite reasonable, *but* I wonder if you could give some references on
this?  I would be surprised to hear any that didn't constitute fine tuning
on a well accepted system (that weren't "just spouting off").
>
> Science should welcome all theories and not try to impose a criteria for
> what a "scientific" theory should be lest that basic premise be wrong and
> the truth be lost.

I beg to differ.  Science should remain open to hypotheses that are motivated by
data.  The question of what constitutes "science" is part of the definition.
It's what distinguishes science from bullshit. 

> Anyone holding CONFIDENTLY to an origins theory sould not be upset by the
> "ravings" of those from opposing viewpoints since along with that
> confidence should be the belief that, given enough time, the wrong theory
> will prove itself to be so.

In a perfect world perhaps.  The anger some scientists feel over creationism
is due to the fact that they perceive that a thoroughly discredited hypothesis
is being trumpeted by a coalition of political and religious forces.  The
fear is that creationism might triumph through politics and thereby inflict
real damage on American science.  I agree that this is unlikely.

"The effort to understand the universe  Ethan Vishniac
 is one of the very few things that   {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
 lifts human life above the level of    Department of Astronomy
 a farce, and gives it some of the      University of Texas
 grace of tragedy" :-)