While the rate of accomplishment today seems likely to eclipse that of the
entire history of science (I understand that there are more scientists alive
today than we know of in the rest of  history), I think that the history of
science gives us reasons to realize the limits of science, Carl Sagan
notwithstanding.

Isn't this why scientists public in peer-reviewed journals, so that their
methods and results can be questioned? The paper also suggested that
scientists wait to publish, so that they can patent their ideas, but then
suggested that "To ensure that regulation of science protects the public,
new technologies should be regulated". I would think fear of regulation
would be an even stronger disincentive to publishing.

But I was struck by the quote from author and critic Fay Weldon: "For its
part, she continued, the public is not ignorant or stupid". I would be
fascinated to know what definition of ignorance she is using. Or, I would
like to meet the people with whom she spends her time, if they have escaped
the reaches of ignorance.

Greg Stigers
http://www.cgiusa.com
Everybody is ignorant. Only on different subjects. [log in to unmask]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig M. Lalley [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 2:28 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: OT:scientists can't be trusted...withhold all
> public funds
>
> To whom ever started this thread, this is a very interesting
> white paper
> on the subject entitled "Do we trust today's Scientist?"
>
> http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/scienceinsociety/data/forum/rep_barn.pdf
>
> Cheers,
>
> Craig M. Lalley
<snip>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *