Tim K. wrote:

"Dan Bloomquist" <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:4171EC17.2090008@lakeweb.com...

I can't speak for Thomas, but the present condition of science is to
model. And any new model is based on an impartiality to previous
conditions. Consider the radical thinking of Einstein when he broke from
Newtonian mechanics. To do good science requires that you don't base
your work on what may be dogma. In other words, it does no good to
assume the completeness of science. Until it is complete, and IMHO it
never will be, we can not know how complete it is.

I would never accuse science of being complete.  I just have to call
bullshit when some piece of kook-stain with only a dull child's grasp of the
scientific method (that would be you Thomas) takes a twisted thought about
how little science knows, turns it into electrons and beams them across the
world to pop up as letters on computer monitors in all manner of places.

I've seen Thomas twist from premise to conclusion often enough and then call it science. Hay I did this with him a couple of weeks ago:

------------------
Thomas:
In other words, give them a nuclear power plant, and then tell them not to develop nuclear weapons. Real good idea.

Me:
This is political. If you would make the distinction. Nuclear energy is
a tool. You can not impose morals on a tool. It has been demonstrated to
be safe when used properly.

Now maybe mankind is not mature enough to handle the tool. But clearly,
the cat is out of the bag. A U.S. nuclear power plant is not going to
change this. What you are doing is the equivalent of saying, 'That cat
is black therefor all cats are black'.
------------------

For those interested in what you are talking about, Feynman explained it pretty well in 'The Meaning of it All'.

Above, I was addressing Michael's blanket statement.

Best, Dan.