Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

[Twiglet]

Science is a dynamic and open ended process used to increase knowledge. The hypotheses of every scientist must survive many revisions and falsification attempts before they have collated enough supporting evidence to be elevated to theory status. Lovelock is simply continuing this process in a principled and respectable manner, even though it could still turn out that he's way off the mark.

Excellent explanation. Lovelocks theories were put out to criticisms he responded to, in order to refine his ideas. That is a good thing. Nobody expects their ideas to be 100% right off the blocks, especially when they cover such a wide range of subject matter.

[JimC]

Science is a dynamic and open ended process used to increase knowledge. The hypotheses of every scientist must survive many revisions and falsification attempts before they have collated enough supporting evidence to be elevated to theory status. Lovelock is simply continuing this process in a principled and respectable manner, even though it could still turn out that he's way off the mark.

Excellent explanation. Lovelocks theories were put out to criticisms he responded to, in order to refine his ideas. That is a good thing. Nobody expects their ideas to be 100% right off the blocks, especially when they cover such a wide range of subject matter.

And in most cases, the criticisms were not wholescale rejections of his ideas, but a careful dissection of certain specific aspects which have already been discussed at length here.

[Brain Man]

I was tackling your paranoid conspiracy fantasy by giving you an education in how science works.

I dont need an education in how science woks. I am employed in science, publish, collaborate and present at conferences. Ok im just getting started in this career, but thats more than most who post on it. maybe its Dawkins i have the problem with. He doesnt actually do the hard graft and risk to do any real science. Hes written some books where he atttempts to make broad statements that turned out not to be true, then wriggles out of it by writing another book. Why doesnt he publish a paper like everybody else ? Then after not doing what other scientists have to go through he sets himself up to pontificate over other scientists work, when really hes clearly not that proficient in any of these fields.

I get the impression he was never interested in science except as a means to glorify himself as some kind of self appointed leader, which he then chose to go on another crusade against religion. He even created a prize by accident. His forum was one of the few places where you could have a decent quality of scientific discussion on any given subject. But it meant nothing to him and was to be discarded like rubbish if it interfered with his self image and personal crusade.

it looks like you are flagellating yourself at the knees of richard dawkins here.

Well it does..anyway whats wrong with flagellating ? i do it all the time..

Are you going to argue memetics is a science

Not in its current form, with genetic terms used to define it. Culture is an information system, we are just waiting for somebody or some group with the genius or resources to figure it out properly.

All of this is nothing more than a re-hash of your earlier argument to which I've already given a response. You're simply trying to promote your personal anti-darwinian agenda by discrediting another scientist. You appear to be guilty of the very crime that you accuse Gould and Dawkins of.

I am not anti-darwinian. It was a revolutionary theory that unravelled genetics, provided a narrative for life and a lot more. Its just extremely limited, the limits for which would take an entire thread in itself.

[macdoc]

. His forum was one of the few places where you could have a decent quality of scientific discussion on any given subject. But it meant nothing to him and was to be discarded like rubbish if it interfered with his self image and personal crusade.

I assume you've joined http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ - most of the science types from Dawk have landed there.

[Brain Man]

. His forum was one of the few places where you could have a decent quality of scientific discussion on any given subject. But it meant nothing to him and was to be discarded like rubbish if it interfered with his self image and personal crusade.

I assume you've joined http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ - most of the science types from Dawk have landed there.

I was wondering where they all went.

[Brain Man]

So who owns and runs rationalskepticsm ?

[Mr P]

So who owns and runs rationalskepticsm ?

This guy: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/member/LIFE/

And a damn fine job he's doing so far.