peterkirk at qaya.org
Sat Aug 28 06:42:54 EDT 2004
On 28/08/2004 05:27, MarianneLuban at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 8/27/2004 6:09:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>formoria at carolina.rr.com writes:
>>On Friday, August 27, 2004, at 08:46 PM, MarianneLuban at aol.com wrote:
>>>In a message dated 8/27/2004 4:45:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>>>formoria at carolina.rr.com writes:
>>>>Now you're speaking of two different things. One can be correct yet
>>>>persuade noone. Cassandra, anyone? Being correct does not require a
>>>>consensus. Being correct requires only that one's arguments contain the
>>>However, in science, if you persuade no one--then you are out of luck.
>>In what way is one out of luck? Ostracized?
>Maybe...but sometimes you can cry all the way to the bank. P.T. Barnum
>summed it up. There's one born every minute.
Well, there are I suppose scientists who come up with the expected and
acceptable results to please the establishment, get themselves nice
secure tenure posts, and go on to perpetuate the insecurely based
results of the previous generation while ignoring evidence which might
disturb that consensus. These are the scientists who end up at the bank,
albeit with modest salaries. They aren't conning their predecessors,
they are all in the same game.
And then there are those who come up with disturbing results, who are
not prepared to bury them or force them to fit the consensus, and so who
don't get their PhDs and tenure posts. Their only way ahead is to appeal
over the heads of the scientific establishment to the unreliable court
of public opinion - which requires its evidence presented in a rather
different way from the academic establishment, not so many question
marks and more bold statements (although qualified elsewhere) like:
>I promised you that we would
>stand together before the cult statue of Joseph ... I am able to keep my promise.
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
More information about the b-hebrew