> >After all, in about any field, it's easy to come up with revolutionary
> >interpretations of data if one isn't familiar with the broader data and
> >theories developed to this point.
>
> Didn't Einstein do what you recommend? He fabricated the cosmological
> constant to make his equations yield a static universe - "the broader
> data and theories developed to this point." And didn't he say that it
> was the biggest mistake of his life?
Yes, he did what I recommended (quoting myself): "The best innovations in
science are almost always from those intimately and accurately familiar with
the current data and theories who -then and only then- are in a position to
critique and surpass them", and came up with special and general relativity,
and contributed mightily to the developments of quantum mechanics. The
error (assuming it was one -- some are now reinvoking it) of the
cosmological constant was hardly the most significant result of this
approach.
(I should have been clear in my initial text you quoted here: "it's easy to
come up with revolutionary AND INCORRECT interpretations of data ....")
> >The best innovations in science are almost always from those
> intimately >and accurately familiar with the current data and
> theories who -then
> >and only then- are in a position to critique and surpass them.
>
> Poor Albert would not have had a chance with you and Glenn and should
> never have had the opportunity to dethrone Newton because he was only an
> obscure patent clerk. Yet, the unassailable data from the total eclipse
> of the Sun of 1919 did just that.
Your "patent clerk" comment is quite misleading, given Einstein's strong
academic background in physics. If he were -merely- a patent clerk, you'd
have a good point. But since he was -also- an expert physicist, and
recognized as such by his peers, this point rather firmly corroborates mine.
(Or do you assert Einstein was not an expert physicist, or that he was not
intimately familiar with Newtonian physics, contemporary electromagnetics,
etc.?)
> According to your criteria, Rudolf Mossbauer also was eminently
> unqualified to make his unassailable observations on "nuclear clocks."
> And of course, he also won a Nobel.
I don't know about Mossbauer, so I won't comment, but your track record in
these assertions is weak so far.
> Given poor Albert and poor Rudolf, perhaps poor Richard is too qualified
> to join their company.
>
> To reiterate, I am anxious to hear from anyone who has read Richard
> Petersen's evidence.
>
> Joseph
>
Joseph, two of the biggest problems in the overall creation/evolution debate
are that (1) confident eloquence is often a substitute for actual knowledge,
and (2) those without intimate knowledge of the relevant sciences are likely
to come up with confidently ignorant critiques of them. (Oblivious
ignorance is more often than knowledge the source of confidence, it seems.)
Glenn's note to you was meant, I suspect, simply to remind you of these
facts. Anyway, those are the points of my notes.
Do you really still so strongly disagree? Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler,
Newton, etc. etc. -- I can't think of any serious exceptions in a hard
science.
In any event, if the arguments in the book you commend are indeed
"unassailable", you needn't worry about proper initial skepticism.
Unassailable arguments defeat initial skepticism every time in the long run.
In His love,
--John