On 8/01/2011 3:34 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> A well-known writer once wrote "quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id
> potius credit". I think he was right.
>

That sounds like something I could believe is true - If only I knew what 
it meant.

>
> Trouble is, Behe will just claim that nobody will publish his research
> because it's "controversial". As if which scientific theories get
> accepted or rejected depends on which scientists are part of the "in
> club" or something.

Which is of course one of the signs of crackpot conspiracy theories. 
The reason you can't prove it is because the conspiracy is hiding the 
evidence!

>
> Unfortunately, there *have* actually been instances of scientists making
> genuine scientific discoveries and being laughed at by mainstream
> science for decades afterwards. Sometimes an idea is just so radical
> that nobody takes it seriously. Who an idea comes from should have no
> baring on its scientific validity, but sometimes that affects how
> willing people are to look at it. How similar a theory is to an existing
> one doesn't necessarily indicate how correct it is, but sometimes people
> act like it does.

The scientific process isn't as pure as perhaps it should be.  It is 
after all a construct of humans and subject to its share of prejudice, 
self interest and outright fraud.  Still the truth will come out and in 
much less time than through any other system going around.

The examples of initially rejected theories that are eventually accepted 
are out there.  Actually they are good illustrations that the system 
works.  Radical theories need strong evidence and should be subjected to 
assault by those who defend the accepted theories.  Don't expect to 
overturn the whole world of physics (or biology, or cosmology etc) in an 
afternoon.

Jumping to use those examples to support a new theory or ideology is a 
sign that it is weak in itself.

>
> I have no idea to what extent this problem has been solved in the modern
> era. I imagine there are probably still ideas that you would be
> hard-pressed to get people to accept, even with valid data to back it
> up. But then, I am not a scientist, so I couldn't say...
>
> Behe, of course, is just using all this as an excuse to get bibles into
> schools, as is transparently self-evident.
>

It is so transparent as to be ludicrous.  As compared to real science it 
is laughable.  Of course those who jump on board want to have it seen as 
an equal 'theory'.

>> In defence of the tree kangaroos of New Guinea and Northern Australia,
>> they quite likely are very well adapted to the same sort of niche as the
>> sloths. Live in trees, eat low nutrition leaves which need to be
>> fermented in order to extract energy, move slowly, conserve energy. If
>> it works then evolution doesn't care how stupid *you* think they look.
>> But you know that.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Actually, in general you find that low-energy habitats are populated by
> animals that move very slowly. (Take a look at the bottom of the sea,
> for example...)

Makes you wonder what life on a Kuiper Belt Object might be like.

Post a reply to this message