In sci.astro mykrowyre wrote:
Interesting. Now doesn't just all of this absolutely MAKE the
point I've been discussing here? Mainstream "science" is
today, religion, NOT science! If it ain't "scripture"
it's "BS". Not worthy of even being looked at, let alone
being discussed! Heads buried deep in the sand! Oh,

You mean if it's not backed up by scientific evidence? You're exactly
right.

Ah, OK. Now let's discuss what exactly is "scientific evidence"?
Here people are used to physical science where one has
voltmeters and meter sticks, but is that the ONLY thing
that qualifies as "scientific evidence"? Testimony
is usually acceptable in a court of law. It's also
acceptable in physical science as well. One scientist
observe a phenomenon and gives testimony as to what he
saw. Now if the phenomenon is readily repeatable,
there isn't problem. Others just go repeat the experiment
and give their testimony. But what if the phenomenon
is transitory and rare? I used the example lightening
before. Does this now mean that the testimony is to
be dismissed totally out of hand? And what kind of
"science" is it that boldly states that if the
experiment is not readily repeatable, the phenomenon
cannot exist and FURTHERMORE should never even
be questioned or studied? You call that a proper
attitude for a natural philosopher?

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!