Re: The Scientific Process

[Peter Sheehan <sheehan@csd4.csd.uwm.edu>]

On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Ralph Chapman wrote:

> 
>   I must again strongly disagree with Van Smith's recent statements.
> 
> VS states that there is a point beyond which questioning theories becomes
> less rational and uses relativity, Maxwell's Equations and Evolution as
> examples and then states that the impact theory also fits this bill.
> 
> Hardly - and remember I am a supporter of the impact theory at this time.
> 
> First of all, scientists are constantly questioning those major processes
> all the time - that's how the theories get modified through time. The way

This reminds me of the debate about plate tectonics.  I think 
paleontologist, more than any other group of earth scientists, were 
unwilling to move to a mobile earth.  And just like the K-T event they 
had some of the best evidence for plate tectonics.

But Kuhn would predict that those closest to the change will be the most 
resistant.  Personally, I have never had a problem with an abrupt K-T 
event, but my perspective is from the Ordovician-Silurian.  And when 
someone suggests the late Ordovician extinction was abrupt I turn a bit 
pale.  

Van Smith is on target.

Peter