Science by non-scientists

[Ted Samsel]

> 
> Thanks for your concern but I'm not sure what list that is.  I am on this
> one and Women's Studies only--no more time I'm afraid.  I take it by your
> tone that you consider all of this unworthy of debate--but that only
> reinforces my assumption that we're defensive about examining things that
> dare to question our basic values.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't.  Diana

Rec.arts.books is on USENET, not a list....
Recently (as Andrew Dinn can vouch), there has been a plethora of
posts deconstructing science and the meaning of same... my point is
that if we make science PoMoscience, we lose much of the grounding that
the sciences give us in explaining physical phenomenon, thus obviating
the lingua franca that science has become....

Should differing "mindsets" be promoted in science? To what point
should they be promoted? If one alternate "reality" in science becomes
accepted, then shouldn't all others be accepted?

(example: If Creation Science becomes acceptable then other (even more
whacked out) diversions (name your poison..) become legitimized to
the detriment of the whole scientific community...)

tejas at infi.net
           "Eat some blackeyed peas and fried banana,
            smoke me a seegar from Havana,
            I'll be the King of Louisiana"   
                             (It's gonna be) PAYDAY  Porter Wagoner