:::::You might want to read some Kuhn, ''On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions''. Your view of how scientific revolutions occur is a bit naive. The "scientific community" is notorious for hanging on to bogus ideas long after they've been discredited. They are humans, not prophets, and they are as subject to inertia, politics, and social pressures as anybody else. They just don't like to admit it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 09:31, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::Is that true of all scientific ideas, or just the ones conservatives don't like?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 10:19, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::All scientific ideas, of course. Copernicus and Galileo faced the same opposition from the same obtuse, egg-headed old-guarders that couldn't admit that the young whippersnapper was right and they didn't have a clue. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:42, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
:This should probably go to one of our [[Debate Topics]], but here's my 2 cents: If a good idea is warped by madmen, we keep the good idea and criticize the madness. When a false idea is used by madmen to justify mass murder, we criticize both their madness and the false idea that used for justification. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)