Forum OpenACS Q&A: Re: nominated for Webby-Awards

Posted by Don Baccus on
So, in answer to my question as to why I should accept your judgement rather than a select committee of the National Academy of Sciences, your argument is that "phrenology was wrong"?

Nothing to do with personal creditials?  Just the fact that certain assumed facts in the past have been proven false in today's world?  I'm to assume that today's scientists are as screwed up as the non-scientists who worked in the non-scientific past?

Phrenology was never a science, so your bringing this up demonstrates nothing more than an ignorance of science.  The fact that you mention phrenology at all is rather amazing, since it was never science-based.

Here is *my* argument against science: it doesn't always agree with Tarot cards or my horoscope.  Therefore, science must be suspect, just as it is because modern thinking doesn't jive with phrenology.

Surely you're aware that modern standards of peer-review, repeatable experimental results, and the like weren't in place in the days of phrenology?

And psychiatry - Freud - is not science.  It is medicine.  And though the two field meet, they are not identical.

You really don't know much about science, do you?