jimtron
20th August 2007, 04:51 PM
This (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-memoryfirst19aug19,1,1160396.story?coll=la-news-science&ctrack=4&cset=true) is a fascinating series of articles. Although the opening sentence in Part Two seems to me to be a straw man:The myth of modern science, that it proceeds carefully, rationally, incrementally, building bit by bit from rock-solid foundations to impregnable fortresses of fact, comes unraveled in contemporary neuroscience. Fortresses, entire kingdoms of neuroscience have been built on what turn out to be frail premises that get swept away entirely when the next new thing comes along.
Wouldn't any credible scientist freely admit that any scientific finding could be proved wrong? Who would make a claim that their discoveries are "impregnable fortresses of fact?"
Wouldn't any credible scientist freely admit that any scientific finding could be proved wrong? Who would make a claim that their discoveries are "impregnable fortresses of fact?"