I have tried to take current explanations into account before continuing and
I am glad that you have come forward to offer further data into discussion.
Please feel free to point out anything you feel we may have missed with
regards to circulation
how people are supposed to think in order to become scientists? I believe
you have touched upon the very reason for such a prolonged existence of many
erroneous scientific projections
the world was once thought to be flat by a like minded thinkers.
I look forward to your contributions to this discussion.
Andrew K Fletcher
Walter Eric Johnson wrote in message <73sh3s$1n2$2 at news.tamu.edu>...
>Andrew K Fletcher (andrew.k.fletcher at naturesway.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: A good lawyer discredits previous evidences and then lays down his new
>: evidences on turned soil so they grow free of weeds and competition.
>>If you approach science as if it were law, noone is going to
>take you seriously. No reputable scientist would use the same
>approach as any lawyer.
>>In science, the evidence that doesn't fit the theory helps
>show the need for extending the theory or coming up with a new
>theory. If you just ignore the evidence that is contrary to
>your theory, you're no scientist.