From morbius@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu Sun May 14 20:55:35 EDT 1995
Article: 177552 of alt.atheism
Path: newsfeed.pitt.edu!minerva!morbius
From: morbius@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu (Edouard Morbius)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.jesus-christ
Subject: Re: I think...
Date: 14 May 1995 21:22:23 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh

In article <3p107b$dr4@urvile.MSUS.EDU> dheld@eeyore.stcloud.msus.edu (Lawnmower Man) writes:
>develop.  This skeptic must entertain the forgery of scientific texts as just
>a valid possibility as the forgery or erroneous transmission of Biblical manu-
>scripts, since many such texts (especially the ancient ones) are just as frag-
>mented and incomplete as atheists claim Biblical manuscripts are.  And suggest-
>ing Martians as the actual authors is little different than questioning the
>authorship of Biblical texts.  How, then, do scientists know they are building
>on a truly solid foundation?

This has to be the most ludicrous misapprehension of the way that science
is done that I have ever heard. Is it your contention that all that a
scientist knows about reality was acquired by the reading of scientific
texts? Do you believe that scientists regard these texts as revealed
truth, not to be questioned or contradicted? Haven't you ever heard of the
notion that theories are to be checked for inconsistencies and tested by
experiment and, if they are found wanting, are to be discarded? Do you
have any idea of the vast amount of experimental data which comfirms the
predictions made by our foundational theories of electrodynamics, quantum
mechanics, and statistical mechanics? Don't you know that an advanced lab
course is a requirement at most universities, meaning that most scientists
have *personally* tested predictions of these theories and confirmed them
for themselves? Sorry to disappoint you, Lawnmower Man, but the
foundations of science are strong and secure after all. 


Edouard Morbius