[extropy-chat] Science and Fools

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> Robin writes:
> > But I'll rephrase my argument to apply to your suggestion to only
> follow 
> > the consensus of experts in fields where progress has been rapid
> over the 
> > last few hundred years.  If you allow yourself to disagree with
> experts 
> > from fields that have not made rapid progress, you are in essence
> saying 
> > that you are some combination of more informed, better at analysis,
> and 
> > more rational than they are.
> 
> That makes sense.  That would extend my rule about not disagreeing
> with the scientific consensus, to not disagreeing with the consensus
> in other fields.

In this respect, I can justly say that as there has been little
progress in any sort of research into gravity and electrostatic
phenomena since the 1920's, when physics was detoured into nuclear and
electromagnetic phenomena for the last 80 years here on earth, and
cosmologically distracted into isolated astronomical events that make
for pretty pictures. There has been little research into field
phenomena because you can't take a pretty picture of a field for your
grant proposal cover page.

This is the same sort of issue we see in the environmental movement,
where environmentalists are always for protecting the cute and fuzzy
animals, but you never see a "save the dung beetle" campaign.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/