<HTML>Since we can again see the posturing of sides in any Egypt-related debates, I have a recommendation.
Take a read of Van Flandern's book Dark Matter, Missing Planets, and New Comets. He's got a great way at looking at "orthodox" views of scientific truths. It may shake you up a bit with exactly how science "works" (or doesn't as the case may be).
As well, he has approached his particular problem, how does the universe work w/ regard to matter, from a powerful standpoint based on the direction of analysis (deductive vs. inductive). Basically, he constructs a universe from its most basic to what we see such that each step of the way, one can more clearly analyze what evidence we see.
Suffice to say (I haven't gotten to it yet), he's got an addition to scientfiic methodology that is sure to shake up the status quo. It's wholly obvious that scientists have continued to use band-aids as well as discard anomalous pieces of evidence that do NOT fit into their current pet theory.
Does anyone see themself in this. The only (I haven't read much in the way of orthodox) people who I've seen specifically state: a theory must take into account ALL the evidence we see or it wouldn't be as valid a theory as one that DOES are Chris Dunn and Alan Alford.
The truth is like a freight train rolling very, very slowly down the tracks. Certain types/groups of people want to derail the train for purely selfish reasons ($ and ego). Others want to see it get to its destination (usually not $-related since there's none to be made from their standpoint).
FWIW, after an fairly exhaustive (for the laymen) search to the understanding of religion, I see no fundamental difference between a religious person's dogma (faith) and a scientist's "facts". They both react with ad hominem attacks as well as skirt the questions at hand. I used to think that only religious people used this tact, but it's shockingly obvious that science has done just as much tap-dancing as the religious. I mean, I'm shocked with the whole purported purist (but NOT) view that science looks upon itself with arrogance.
I'm in a somewhat scientific field (very large-scale computer performance and capacity specialist) and see the same "facts" masquerading for truth. I'm personally glad I discarded my ego in childhood (if I had any, that is). It makes for a whole lot less unknown biased view of one's influence on life. In fact I'll go so far as to say, that someone WITH an ego will never see as clearly as one without an ego.
JL (sorry for the semi-rant, but I'm all for cattle-prodding anyone, including myself, who doesn't act ego-less and truly strive for truths).</HTML>
