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

[Ian Glendinning]

I consider that very wise Marsha.

I call your "There are not the resources to chase down all anomalies
and alternative hypotheses"
The "Life's too short" hypothesis, but it doesn't win me any friends
or arguments ;-)
Ian

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:37 AM, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
>
> 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.........
> .
> .
> 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/
>