Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!hplabs!oliveb!glacier!kestrel!ladkin
From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci
Subject: Re: More Contempt prior to Investigation
Message-ID: <6218@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 27-Mar-86 21:50:34 EST
Article-I.D.: kestrel.6218
Posted: Thu Mar 27 21:50:34 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Apr-86 00:10:52 EST
References: <435@ccivax.UUCP> <489@ccivax.UUCP>
Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 32

In article <489@ccivax.UUCP>, rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) 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.
> 
Velikovski has been considered at length in sections of major
conferences. The problems really are that his *theory* changes
as soon as someone shows parts of it categorically false.
It's also hard to deal with a piece of work which
shows contempt for normal standards of discussion.
But it has been tried. Who can blame some for getting
exasperated?

> scientists have gone to great lengths to prove that Dvorak's claims
> are not valid.  

Read, engineers, marketing managers and economists. 
For example, from whom did you find out the Dvorak
keyboard tests better? It was probably someone who
investigated it with care. And what do we call such
people?

> 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.

This is very much open to question.
Isn't *flawed but valid* a somwhat contradictory property?

Peter Ladkin