On Thursday, in article
     <yo2rc.49256$mX.18525516@twister.nyc.rr.com>
     sweet430@hotmail.com "sweet" wrote:

This point implies that scientists can't think beyond their science. I guess
it's true if one ignores the millions of publications trying to extend that
science. It's very ironic that only the artsy types can imagine... as if
scientists are dullards who live in a box.

You're the one doing scientists the disservice, as if they cannot also be 
artistic.  Science and art are NOT mutually exclusive.  There are numerous 
SF writers who are also accomplished scientists.  I've already cited 
Robert Forward, but then I would - he's one of my favourite authors.  You 
are the one drawing the box around scientists as if they're a breed apart 
from humanity.

Science THRIVES on speculation - it's what drives research, and yet 
somehow in your world view if the speculation predates the research in some 
"artistic" form it is worthy only of being swept aside as "mere" 
speculation.  Does speculation suddenly become more valuable if it derives 
from the same person who then researches it?

As far as I am concerned the science is always first and it is the artists
who lag behind.

So you've said.  Repeating a falsehood doesn't improve its veracity.
-- 
Raj Rijhwani                    |  This is the voice of the Mysterons...
raj@rijhwani.org                |  ... We know that you can hear us Earthmen
http://www.rijhwani.org/raj/    |  "Lieutenant Green:  Launch all Angels!"