quote:
If the halls of science are stacked with people like those that smeared Sternberg, then it's clearly not objective enough, at least in those circles, to be trusted in my opinion.
Frankly, the halls of pretty much anything are stacked with people like that. Such behavior is just human nature, so it seems to me. I even understand your point about trust.
The nice thing about science is that the evidence eventually wins. No amount of theory and no prejudice can trump a solid experimental result that is obnoxious enough to keep recurring.
And besides, the majority of exchanges between researchers are fairly civil.
quote:
I would have been happy to have been proven wrong, but as it turns out...
Well, I'd be happy to hear a good ID argument. I've followed the subject, and used to debate it quite a bit on these forums about two years ago, and I don't see that ID has anything going for it. All of its arguments that I have heard fail for some reason or another, usually because they rest upon the idea that we don't know how X could have happened naturally so it must have happened un-naturally. Sorry, but any argument that rests upon that inference will fail. The inference is invalid. It could well be that this is why ID isn't published much in peer reviewed journals.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
™ Version 4.2
