[meteorite-list] Hal Povenmire Contact Info?

From: Mike Fowler <mqfowler_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 15:09:50 -0500
Message-ID: <CBCD6421-E91A-43BF-B374-BFFB4BE3978E_at_mac.com>

> [meteorite-list] Hal Povenmire Contact Info?
>
> Michael L Blood mlblood at cox.net
> Sat May 12 15:28:44 EDT 2007
>
> Previous message: [meteorite-list] Hal Povenmire Contact Info?
> Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>
>
> on 5/12/07 11:24 AM, Mike Fowler at mqfowler at mac.com wrote:
>
>
> > Before the ion microprobe, isotope analysis, and actual lunar
> samples
>
> > for comparison, the lunar origin of tektites was tenable.
>
> >
>
> > Now it is not, and I wonder how someone who clings to a disproved
>
> > hypothesis can be considered to be eminent in his field?
>
> >
>
> > Mike Fowler
>
> > Chicago
>
> ---------
> Hi Mike,
> Not to be argumentative, but to add some perspective,
> 1) "Disproved" is relative.
> 2) If everyone in science lost all credibility whenever their
> perspective clashed with the majority of other scientists in
> their field not only would there be a huge loss in the number
> of scientists, but many of the greatest scientists in history
> would have gone unheard (and many have, no doubt).
> 3) Some might consider your above statement to be based
> in arrogance. Certainly it is founded in a narrow definition,
> if not outright misconception, of what is and what isn't
> "scientifically acceptable."
> 4) Some of the greatest figures of science clear back to the
> Greeks held beliefs difficult to imagine. Freud, unquestionably
> the "founder" of psychology dramatically over emphasized sex,
> was himself a sexist & believed "psychoanalysis" was an effective
> "treatment." (as a result, many still do, in spite of results of
> comparative studies involving other forms of psychotherapy).
> None of which makes the other 95% of Freud's work one whit
> less monumental, any more than Plato believing in
> spontaneous generation undermines his significance.
> Best wishes, Michael


Michael,

Here's the best analogy I can think of.

I'm sure you've heard of the New Jersey Iron object that crashed
through a roof and was hastily declared a meteorite. If the
scientists involved continued to insist it was a meteorite after an
analysis showed that chemically it was man made and not chemically
consistent with being a meteorite, what would you think?

I for one, would begin to doubt whether he is a good scientist. It
has nothing to do with arrogance, or scientific acceptability.
It has to do with making a hypothesis, testing it, and if
contradicted by the evidence, moving on.

Sincerely,

Mike Fowler
Received on Sat 12 May 2007 04:09:50 PM PDT