specialists, cosmologists, bla blaBLAH BLAH

[Paul Mackin]

On Mon, 8 Jan 1996, Daniel Stein wrote:

> Sure, Paul, I'll bite. [and try to straighten you out]

And thank you for it. I am often aware after typing in my posts
that I have pushed whatever point I thought I was trying to make far 
beyond anything at all reasonable. I clearly do need straightening out.
(more to follow)

> 	 I'm not at all
> sure what you
> mean when you state that "science seems so dead." This view is characteristic
> of the failure to remember that scientific knowledge is, above ALL else,
> tentative
> (provisional) - living, evolving, always testing the depth, like the
> bather, even when
> toes do not  touch bottom. I could (and do) make the facile remark the once
> you have a
> Universal Truth on your hands, you indeed have something inanimate (or
> dead? not at
> all the same.) But likewise the path continues on from, or perhaps athwart,
> that UT.
> 

I meant dead relative to finding God at the center of the Big Bang, or
something comparable. Dead meaning unexciting. But the inanimation of
a universal truth may be part of what I was thinking too. 

>From the hobbyhorse I've been riding lately, the tentative nature of 
science is actually a _negative_. It's tentative because it's hypothetical.
Another explanation can be substituted as soon as some new facts can be
found to fit. Proofs are always being displaced by other proofs. I'll admit, 
however, that I had better back off from such worries before I do myself 
permanent damage. I don't expect the Big Bang or thermodynamics to be 
overthrown any time soon.

Actually, I thorougly approve of the scientific method. I was just
thinking about something else at the time. There won't be a resumption
of the two-cultures wars if I have anything to say about it. I consider
myself of citizen of both worlds. (Although I guess that sounds kind of
presumptuous.)

Thanks for your reply.

				P.