HARVEY BROOKS

In the world of science, today’s truths are all modified or placed into a more sophisticated concept tomorrow, If there is evidence that supplants old science, it is immediately discarded by the good scientists. Politicians hold on to debunked political and economic ideas regardless of the evidence. Einstein superseded Newton’s view of physics of the universe and gravity, and quantum mechanics has shown that Relativity was somewhat oversimplified and did not apply to the very small world inside atoms. The only reason Aristotle was right for a few hundred years because the Dark Ages virtually stopped the development of science. Politicians who want surety from scientist are frustrated in that the good scientists know that it can never be given without caveats. Meanwhile politicians are sure of their positions and state them with certainty despite the fact that there is usually NO evidence for them that a scientist would ever accept and if there were in a few years it would be found to be oversimplified or wrong. See {624499} .

One classic example is the scientist who is testifying before a Congressional Committee. Typically if there is a political issue, the politician of each viewpoint will find a scientists who supports their view. In a huge country, they can always find on or two to support any idea regardless of its validity. In the world of science, the scientist who has been doing experiments in a field for years and has published articles in peer-reviewed journals, teaches other scientists who do outstanding work, and have won prizes or accolades from his/her peers is given much more credibility than the scientist who has none of these accomplishments and just may have a different point of view and claim that the first scientist is in error UNLESS the critical scientist can show mathematical or other scientific proof that the first is wrong. Often in politics, the lesser critical scientist offers questions which the leading scientist cannot answer bit in science that proves nothing. There is ALWAYS much more a scientists does NOT know about an area than he does know. See {623513}.

One classic example is the scientist who is testifying before a Congressional Committee. Typically if there is a political issue, the politician of each viewpoint will find a scientists who supports their view. In a huge country, they can always find on or two to support any idea regardless of its validity. In the world of science, the scientist who has been doing experiments in a field for years and has published articles in peer-reviewed journals, teaches other scientists who do outstanding work, and have won prizes or accolades from his/her peers is given much more credibility than the scientist who has none of these accomplishments and just may have a different point of view and claim that the first scientist is in error UNLESS the critical scientist can show mathematical or other scientific proof that the first is wrong. Often in politics, the lesser critical scientist offers questions which the leading scientist cannot answer bit in science that proves nothing. There is ALWAYS much more a scientists does NOT know about an area than he does know. See {623513}.

In the world of science, today’s truths are all modified or placed into a more sophisticated concept tomorrow, If there is evidence that supplants old science, it is immediately discarded by the good scientists. Politicians hold on to debunked political and economic ideas regardless of the evidence. Einstein superseded Newton’s view of physics of the universe and gravity, and quantum mechanics has shown that Relativity was somewhat oversimplified and did not apply to the very small world inside atoms. The only reason Aristotle was right for a few hundred years because the Dark Ages virtually stopped the development of science. Politicians who want surety from scientist are frustrated in that the good scientists know that it can never be given without caveats. Meanwhile politicians are sure of their positions and state them with certainty despite the fact that there is usually NO evidence for them that a scientist would ever accept and if there were in a few years it would be found to be oversimplified or wrong. See {624499} .