Re: pseudoscience and fossils
Scott H Mullins (smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu)
12 Jan 1995 17:42:40 GMT
In article <1995Jan10.030035.20564@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n8010095@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Phillip Bigelow) writes:
[deleted a mediocre summary of the history of Velikovskianism]
>tested (at least at the time they were written; the late 1970's started
>knocking them down); and there was a following of un-wavering supporters
>who claimed "unfair" treatment by the scientific orthodoxy.
> Sound familiar?
Not really. I should say, not yet. The AAT hypotheses does not,
so far as I know, contradict the laws of physics. There are no AAT
supporters arguing that the whole of modern science must be
overturned to support some mythological interpretations.
The real question that I wanted to ask, Mr. Bigelow, was this:
is it really necessary that you act like such an ass? Really,
the attempt to paint the AAT with Velikovskian paint is a weak
and unctuous rhetorical ploy. You're not a lawyer, are you?
--
Scott
smullins@ecn.purdue.edu
|