> LH> 4. An "historical" scientific theory is tested insofar as the
> > auxilliary hypotheses required to fit the "historical" data must
> > not contradict the bounds set from the experimental sciences.
WR> If Loren were serious about that, then evolution is already falsified.
> For the evolutionary assumptions required to fit the historical data (e.g.
> the wide gaps between fossil life forms) systematically contradicts the
> bounds set from the experimental sciences.
Someone help me out here, please.
What should you do when an expert in a field offers --- without even an
"IMO" --- an opinion which is respectable, defensible, but nevertheless a
decidedly _minority_ opinion among experts in the field.
Do you simply say, "You are wrong"?
Do you say, "In my opinion, you are wrong"?
Do you say, "In the opinion of most experts in your field, you are wrong"?
Do you offer to spend the next 30 years compiling the empirical data from
100 years of experiments in order to challenge the opinion?
Do you challenge the expert to toss out a few experimental results to
back up his claim?
What's the best option?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our hero ruefully acknowledges |
that this happens fairly frequently...." | Loren Haarsma
--Spaceman Spiff (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu