On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:26:19 -0400, William December Starr wrote:
> In article <qr6Ej.21174$Er2.8602@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "adman" <72545@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>
>> "Jon Schild" <jjs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:frpja2$egp$2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> So, this boils down to the idea that science has one chance to
>>> get every detail of an idea right, and if there is ever any
>>> refinement, it proves that the whole science is wrong. What a
>>> load of bullcookies.
>>
>> If something is wrong then it needs to be changed. If something
>> needs constant revision, then the foundation was wrong. It is
>> really THAT simple.
>
> *Something* here is certainly simple, anyway.
What does that imply for nuclear physics, cosmology and neurology, which
aren't even close to being finished and mature sciences yet?
All fraud?
--
The best piece of logic I ever heard, Mr Larynx; the very best,
I assure you.
< _Nightmare Abbey_
|
