On 01/08/2014 08:29, NOPE9 YES wrote:
> It can be shown that scientists have often denied new science
> long after it had plenty of proof.  Here is but one example:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
The first two rows:
> *Criticism of the theory of relativity* of Albert Einstein
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein> was mainly expressed in th=
e
> early years after its publication in the early 1900s, on scientific
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science>, pseudoscientific
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience>, philosophical
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy>, or ideological
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology>
> bases.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity=
#cite_note-hentschel-1>


> On the other hand , sometimes a new science theory is accepted=20
> before there is sufficient proof.=20
The problem with this objects is the lack of proof.
And if accepted without,  is because of lack of knowledge of scientific met=
hod :(

>  I do not offer any examples of
> that for fear of being flung from the list.
> Gus in Denver


          Nic in Europe

--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.