On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:14:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I also suggested that the boundaries of science *could* alter in the
future to consider concepts, theories and studies that are today not
included or are on the edge.

As the only item under discussion was that of ID your suggestion was naturally
taken to mean that the boundary change might be sufficient to include that. I
accept your apology for misleading everyone and confirmation that you never
meant any such thing. You are still confused by your ideas of 'boundary' of
science and I'm more inclined to believe that you are actually talking about
the boundaries of scientists rather than the boundaries of science ie changing
what scientists (or their financiers & publishers) actually study rather than
the rules that they (should) apply in their work.

Andy,..here is what you were too lazy to google

The key phrase to note is this one:-

“We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful
people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true," they
shouted.

In short, it is the triumph of opinion over reality that is the issue of
this story.

At some point you either think that if enough monkeys thinks something
is true, it is, or that there is some reality beyond the chattering of
monkeys...if the former, you are of the Bandar Log, and the same fate
awaits you.


I haven't suggested that I think anything of the kind.

Your constant attempts to put words in my mouth and suggestions that I
hold this position or that should be cast into the grey-green greasy
Limpopo where they belong.

The water should be high enough right now.


--

..andy