Evidence can only be found if you can search for it. Convetional theories have the advantage of decades, possibly hundreds of years evidence to back it up. Yet on the same note, alternate theories lack the evidence because not so many people research in it (pronounce not enough support nor guts to support such research). Yet people proclaim these theories as folly because they have no evidence!!
Why can't it be allowed for people that have the imagination and courage to study these matters be left alone and given the same privileges as others.
It would be very interesting if a company would be willing to publish articles concerning alternate theories in a scientific and 'really' objective way of seein if the arguments are objective and valid. (yes, Sri Kowtha, we are humans and are ultimately subjective in nature, but one could try!!), on par with those renown journals like nature etc.
|The folly of Academia||387||MArk Chan||04-Dec-00 14:32|
|RE: The folly of Academia||216||peterk||04-Dec-00 16:13|
|RE: The folly of Academia||197||MArk Chan||04-Dec-00 16:46|
|RE: The folly of Academia||172||Brian A||04-Dec-00 17:20|
|RE: The folly of Academia||209||MArk Chan||04-Dec-00 18:05|
|RE: The folly of Academia||214||Sri Kowtha||04-Dec-00 17:37|
|RE: The folly of Academia||212||MArk Chan||04-Dec-00 17:55|
|RE: The folly of Academia||186||MArk Chan||04-Dec-00 17:59|