|
Steven,
Most interesting read. I was rather fascinated by this approach and the accounts of pathological science. It also reminded me of nobel prize winner Linus Pauling's claims as to vitamin C preventing colds and used as a treatment for cancer.
Is a misinterpretation of the available data to this point in time to be regarded as pathological science in the future? I wonder how many of the tentative theories of today will be regarded as pathological science in the future. That is, when more accurate or more inclusive data will change the interpretation of the physics. For example, what if future data completely discounts the existence of dark matter and dark energy? Interpreting something into existence ... the elusive dark energy!
How does one regard a set of potential solutions, the "fill gaps" of today, when they turn out to be red herrings at some future time?
Regards, Rob
|