[MD] A Tiny Hominid With No Place on the Family Tree

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,

You seem dangerously naive  to me because of the ease with which you 
overlay an idealized science onto a working science.  There are not 
the resources to chase down all anomalies and alternative 
hypotheses.  And the answers reached are often guaranteed by the 
method, questions and instruments used for evaluating a theory.  How 
long did it take to correct Newton's physics?  How many hundreds of 
years to make that correction?  From what I've read there were plenty 
of anomalies along the way.  (In my mind, it is better to see time 
and space as static patterns of value, conceptually constructed.  It 
is a better perspective.)  And I hardly think that science as a tool 
of politics, profit and the military make it an exalted institution. 
Science needs to work better.


Marsha



At 12:51 AM 4/29/2009, you wrote:

>Marsha and Platt --
>
>
>[Platt]:
>>The Darwinists are hard pressed to explain hobbits.
>>The theory is now challenged from within.
>>Wonders never cease.
>
>[Marsha]:
>>Intelligent Design is not credible science.
>>My concern is that science is blindly followed without an
>>understanding of its danger points, and I am relieved
>>that it is being challenged.  It should be properly
>>evaluated and monitored by all citizens.
>
>Intelligent Design is not Science at all.  It is an intellectual 
>perspective of reality based on man's sensibility to symmetry and 
>order.  When we say that the universe is intelligently designed, by 
>whose "intelligence" are we judging its design?   Human beings are 
>rational creatures who impute their own intelligence to the 
>objective world because of its value (high-quality) to them.
>
>The "wonder" is that you don't realize scientific anomalies like the 
>newly discovered  hobbit skeletons are constantly being 
>challenged.  The method of Science is: investigate - test - 
>confirm.  When you read the entire article, you see that 
>paleontologists, biologists, and archeologists are currently in the 
>"testing phase", ruling out possible explanations, such as early 
>migration of a more primitive species, reversion to an ancestral 
>lineage, genetic mutations or pathological disorders, or island 
>dwarfing.  Eventually they will have the evidence they need to 
>confirm a conclusion.  Until then, unlike armchair speculators and 
>journalists, they withhold any official pronouncement.
>
>As Stony Brook's anatomist, speaking for the research team, said, 
>their investigation has entered "a period of wait and 
>see.  ...Someday people [will ask], why was everyone so puzzled back 
>then - it's plain to see where the little people of Flores came 
>from."  That's the way Science works.  If Science depended on the 
>"evaluation and monitoring" of uninformed citizens, reaching 
>objective conclusions would be about as rare as it is on this forum.
>
>--Ham
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.