Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

Stephen Barnard (
Wed, 07 Aug 1996 18:26:04 -0800

> On 6 Aug 1996, Bryant wrote:
> > See my response to that bit of illogic earlier in the thread. Unlike
> > psychotherapy, Gale, science is not ruled by conventions of validating
> > others and making them feel good about their "realities." It's hard
> > nosed and judgemental. And since scientists, not psychotherapists,
> > helped rid the world of smallpox (for instance), I'm inclined to find
> > value in their approach to describing the world.
> >
> I'm not a psychotherapist. What I am is *not the idiot who would embrace
> cold-fussion because it's "science".* I am a skeptic who is challenging
> your world view because it is naive; it is not hard-nosed. It is soft and
> gullible.

Get real, Gale. The credible people who shot down cold fusion are scientists, not
belly-button philosophers.

BTW, there seems to be something strange going on with cold fusion. It's still not
understood. That's the difference between science and philosophy. Science has no
absolutes, everything is open to question, but *some* things are so well confirmed
that no one but an idiot or a genius before his time would question them.

Steve Barnard