[log in to unmask] wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
>  are missing the mark in several areas.
>
> 1.  science benefits from people that do not believe in it's conclusions...and oftentimes in such a case, scientific conclusions are proven "wrong".  thalidomide is not safe for a developing fetus, despite the "science" that showed it was beneficial...
Bad example, especially since it was the only one. It was not approved 
in the US. The reason, good science. The FDA rep, a woman scientist of 
great courage, knew that there could be problems and that the German 
manufacturer did not show any tests involved with the potential 
problems. Her strength against tremendous pressure resulted in stricter 
drug laws in the US and also outside the US. It also turned out that the 
manufacturer's data, never given out, did show a problem. So science was 
the good guy here, and marketing the bad guy.

Science is not errorless, but it is subject to reasoned experiments that 
show something different. That is always welcome, but be prepared to 
prove your findings. I reject the conclusion from one bad example that 
science is "often" proved wrong. Just check the Journals that come out 
every year on new findings in Chemistry. Once, many many years ago, 
there was only one thin book, but now there is volume after volume every 
year. So out of literally tens of  thousands of new findings every year 
you if you find one or two wrong, that does not constitute "often".

As far as the next issue, when you move into things of faith, 
unfortunately you are in the world of the believer and the charlatan. It 
becomes a messy world.

Bill Truesdell (who believes in both angels and angles and thinks Jim 
should have stuck to angles.)
Bath, Maine

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************