Robert, your view of science is that of the science professor and not the research scientist. You are extremely uncomfortable when someone presents anything other than a strictly textbook view.

The problem is this - the textbook approach never finds solutions to existing questions or new answers. You torpedo everything that you can't immediately recognize from one of Harcourt & Brace textbooks. A research scientist has to take the textbook view - a view which is almost always incomplete - and then start throwing other ideas at them, especially when the textbook is clueless. Sure lots of ideas are wrong or may have components of value and components utterly worthless - but it is all part of the scientific process.

When science says "I don't know" you're fine with that but you immediately start screaming when someone starts to hypothesize or throw new ideas around. I could quote textbook views and be incomplete or wrong and be pleased at my ability to accumulate and parrot recorded data - or I can start thinking outside the box and apply new ideas to old problems. I am happy to do the latter, even if I am dead wrong, if there's even the remotest chance that it will further scientific understanding. No one's burning the textbooks, but if folks don't start throwing ideas around there will be no new revised editions. That's stagnation. Science isn't a static field and so one can't get all bent out of shape when someone presents different ideas. The science professor says this view is "right" and this view is "wrong" - the reality is BOTH views are usually wrong!

As for my being like Sam or Johannes; Sam has never really gotten into scientific matters that I am aware of but rather parrots websites he's seen which have questionable value. Johannes is entirely different and is definitely trying to think about things and I can't help but admire his persistance, whether he's right or wrong. He may need to be more receptive to others ideas and scientific input - but he's clearly trying. I don't agree with his particular theory about the loss of heat to space and, in fact, believe the reverse is true - that the earth is absorbing more energy than it dissipates.

Leonardo also thought the lungs were connected to the reproductive system and would be laughed out of today's hospitals - but that doesn't mean he didn't have something to contribute. That's my take on most research scientists - that each has at least one good idea in their work to contribute to science and many more may have a lot of good ideas. The key is not to get into a pi--ing contest of egos or to prove one's superior knowledge. If we all took the view of Socrates when he said, "All I know is that I know nothing" we would all be better off. Looking or waiting for that one valuable idea is a good approach when dealing with folks who pursue new knowledge - trying to discourage them or humiliate them is a waste of time and completely counterproductive. False ideas are always borne out so over time and valid ones will eventually be vindicated - shouting and namecalling may be emotionally gratifying but is pointless and doesn't really do any good.

A child may think the sky is blue because it was colored by a crayon, shouting at the kid is no substitute for entering into a discussion explaining the wavelengths of light and the perception of color when he/she is ready.

That's my take. So relax - I'm not tearing the pages out of the McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Physics. If you must - laugh at my obvious originalist ignorance instead.

;-)

SDAI-Tech1