Posted by Peter H on March 02, 2006 at 15:27:04 from 86.130.123.86 user Peter_H.
In Reply to: Re: History of Science (was Map dowsing) posted by Jock on March 02, 2006 at 14:11:26:
My point is simply that 'established science' is neither as stable, comprehensive, nor as coherent as its spin doctors would have us believe.
Yes, I'd go along with the first part of that, ie as a non-scientist I had got the impression that established science certainly wasn't totally stable etc. But what worries me is the second part, ie that science has 'spin doctors'. Do you mean that there are 'Jehovah's Witnesses' of science? 'I am the truth, the way, the light . . ' Dear me. Do you think Richard Dawkins falls into that category?
(Lest we get too far off-topic, I am sure Dick would have an interest in all this. He did not believe in 'shouting in triumph', so I think he definitely was not a science spin doctor.)