BrianW
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 1999
- Messages
- 2,563
- Real Name
- Brian
Brad, that's a good question. I look forward to seeing Steeve's response.
Also, if I may, I'd like to point out what I see as a contradiction:It looks to me like you're trying to have it both ways. Certainly anything under the sun (and the sun itself) is fair game for general discussion. If your concerns are general and consist of notions that are outside the scope of science, that's perfectly fine. But if you insist on discussing things outside the scope of science and then criticize scientists for refusing to explain these notions in their work, then I think you can count on every scientist here to cry “foul”. It seems to me that scientists are often put in the position of defending what they don't do in discussions like these, and I would really like to understand why. Honestly, why scientists as opposed to gymnasts? I don't see gymnasts acknowledging the existence of these notions in their work. Why not pick on them?
Also, if I may, I'd like to point out what I see as a contradiction:It looks to me like you're trying to have it both ways. Certainly anything under the sun (and the sun itself) is fair game for general discussion. If your concerns are general and consist of notions that are outside the scope of science, that's perfectly fine. But if you insist on discussing things outside the scope of science and then criticize scientists for refusing to explain these notions in their work, then I think you can count on every scientist here to cry “foul”. It seems to me that scientists are often put in the position of defending what they don't do in discussions like these, and I would really like to understand why. Honestly, why scientists as opposed to gymnasts? I don't see gymnasts acknowledging the existence of these notions in their work. Why not pick on them?