"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> "Ethan Winer" wrote ...
>>> Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers, and produce _zero_
>>> working technology.
>>
>> LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers" diss real
>> science, but of course they have nothing of their own to show.
>
> On the other hand we have a rich history of "real science"
> that seemed just as valid in its time, but in retrospect is
> embarassing at best. And I wouldn't bet my life that 100%
> of everything we think of as "real science" today will stand
> the test of time and further research.
>


Agreed, and I think the biggest mistake made is to think that Science deals
with "facts". It does not, it merely puts forward hypotheses that fit
certain observations. A particularly good hypothesis (theory) will also
predict certain outcomes that may later be observed to be as predicted.
These theories are only designed to be "true" until an observation
condtradicts it, or it is updated by a better version, they are absolutely
NOT describing things that are actually true or are known facts. There are
no known facts at all. (except perhaps in Mathematics, which precisely
defines the facts it is proving)



Gareth.