I hear you when it comes to anecdotal reports.  But there is much that
distinguishes modern science and "scientific fact" which were on the table
when we arrived.

The main difference is "scientific method" and peer review.  If we
distinguish between hearsay and rigorous scientific reporting, a good deal
of what is being discovered and published now should stand the test of
time.


On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Al Needham wrote:

> Let's face it, our alleged knowledge of science is still
> down at a pretty low plane.
...
> Think of how many alleged scientific "facts"
> have been utterly demolished within our lifetimes
> since they were initially discovered.

---------------
Richard Yarnell, SHAMBLES WORKSHOPS | No gimmick we try, no "scientific"
Beavercreek, OR. Makers of fine     | fix we attempt, will save our planet
Wooden Canoes, The Stack(R) urban   | until we reduce the population. Let's
composter, fly tying benches        | leave our kids a decent place to live.