Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!glacier!oliveb!hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!bbncca!aoa!carl
From: carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci
Subject: Re: More Contempt prior to Investigation
Message-ID: <428@aoa.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Mar-86 12:41:50 EST
Article-I.D.: aoa.428
Posted: Mon Mar 24 12:41:50 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Apr-86 08:25:16 EST
References: <435@ccivax.UUCP> <489@ccivax.UUCP>
Reply-To: carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft)
Organization: Adaptive Optics Assoc., Cambridge, Mass. USA
Lines: 25
Xref: linus net.philosophy:4501 net.sci:400

In article <489@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) writes:
>
>I've been reading a book called "Velikovski Reconsidered" which includes
>a great number of examples of how leading scientists have effectively
>shown "contempt" for what could be a very valid theory.  The interesting
>thing is that the facts, as they come in, are in Velikovski's favor.
>
 Hohoho. Not true.
>Another interesting example - August Dvorak devloped a keyboard which
>unlike the one you're probably typing on now, was designed to speed up
>rather than slow down typists.  Because of economic considerations,
>scientists have gone to great lengths to prove that Dvorak's claims
>are not valid.  Would you believe there are people who still believe

I hope you mean "scientists" employed by typewriter companies. 
Otherwise, I've been unable to find ANYBODY who believes thatn
Dvorak is slower than qwerty.
>These are two examples where, because of contempt on the part of scientists,
>improvements on flawed but valid theories have been ignored in preference
>to justifying even more flawed theories.
There ARE decent examples, but in general they involve infighting among 
enemies within a tight community ( e.g. nuclear physics in 1900-1930). the
examples cited above are junk.