Martin, you wrote: "In reality,
however unfortunate, the dogma is a part of science-in-action.
Sit, stay,
good dogma."
Congratulations. In this statement you have managed, it seems, to have out done none other than William Shakespeare himself. This is one of the most comic/tragic statements I have ever encountered. And the real tragedy of what you demonstrate is that this is the thinking of most of the scientific community.
Further you wrote:
" As I recall, there is a group of people who believe, regardless of
what
scientists tell them, that the object in their possession is an emerald
meteorite. It seems that no amount of evidence will convince
them
otherwise, and they have put forth the similar argument by attacking
the
dogma of the science community."
I find it outrageous that Michael Blood would be held up to comparison to such obvious 'money-hungry scammers'. Further, the use of this example is an insult to every thinking person as well.
Again, you write:
" choose to
believe more on faith and less on scientific evidence."
assumptions in your use of the word faith. What happened to
untamed curiosity followed by the employment of logic, comtemplation, research
and creativity in thinking for oneself and deciding where the evidence
may or may not lead?
What is evidence? Who decides? (Rhetorical) One need only to look at one of the 'father 's' of this discussion group, Galileo, for perspective. His ideas were so unpopular and threatening to the existing data base of knowledge he was imprisoned. This, I believe, is Michael 's point about Dogma.
Dawn sound good? Place your choosing. Weapon, mine.
Julia