Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!uscvax!kurtzman
From: kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: mammoths in the arctic
Message-ID: <55@uscvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 15:06:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: uscvax.55
Posted: Wed Oct 16 15:06:14 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Oct-85 01:44:25 EDT
References: <428@imsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman)
Organization: CS&CE Depts, U.S.C., Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 53

In article <428@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:
>
>   ...
>
>     Immanuel  Velikovsky's  scenario  in  which  the  mammoths  were living
>peacefully  in  their  tropical  forrest  until  it  became  an  arctic zone
>overnight,  so  quickly  in  fact,  that  some  of their bodies froze before
>decomposing at all and remain thus  perfectly preserved  today, is  the only
                                                                     ^^^^^^^^
>scenario possible  for these creatures. ...
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>     The pictures  and displays  which science  presents of mammoths walking
>around in ice and snow, are actually more  properly suited  to the  realm of
>psychadelia, pink  dancing elephants,  Dr. Timothy Leary etc.  The next time
>any of you see such a display in a museum, rather than saying to the exhibit
>director:
>
>     "I  say,  you  chaps  must  keep  on  your  toes, to know so much about
>     creatures which perished so long ago."
>
>which is what he expects to hear, say:
>
>     "HEY MAN, what you been SMOKIN, to have dreamed THAT **** up?"
>
>which is what he deserves to hear.


It is funny that this man thinks that popular depictions of how things
may have been are science. Pictures of wooly mammoths trudging around
in the snow are speculations based on scientifically studied data. But that
is not the real point that I am posting this follow-up. This crackpot
regularly spouts religion based creationism and blind speculation as "the
only scenario possible". As a thinking human being I resent the way this man
denegrates scientific theories by questioning the notion of proof (in a
previous posting) and then asserts with all certitude that some wild and 
unfounded speculation is the "only scenario possible".

To this man science needs some precise and infallible method of proof in
order to find truth. Since this doesn't exist (here comes the non-sequiter)
the scientific method must fail when there is a conflict between what a
scientist theorizes and what he believes/has faith in/hopes to be true.
In effect, what this man is doing is rejecting reasoned discourse for
superstition and wild speculation. I suppose he was disillusioned when he
found out that science is a human endeavor and hence subject human failures.
Now he can rest assured that in superstition and wild speculation he has
found the truth and authority that science failed to provide.

Let us all hope that he writes the science textbooks our children will use
in their formative years :-) (if he does 8-O would be a more appropriate
face).

p.s. sorry for the flame, but the devil made me do it.