<<<<Any real scientist knows that the history of science is one of revolution and change. Little remains carved in stone for long.>>>>
I don't know where you get this. All science is built on previous knowledge, sometimes modified by observations it's current set of rules cannot explain, and sometime totally changed. The last one is the exception not the rule, and when it happens there is real data backing up the change is neccessary.
Much of basic geometry (math is a science, depending on empirical knowledge) we had the basics since Ancient Egypt/Roman Times, how else could they build such great wonders without math. Most science is built upon, not thrown out. Many sciences stood the test of time - geometry, calculus, statistics, physics. Even Einstein Theory of Relativity (a revolution I suppose) did not throw out all previously known physics, other theories just undergo a paradigm shift (some modifications) in order to accomodate his theory. Einstein never would have his theory of relavity and other accomplishments if not for previous groundwork. He would have been busy developing everything that came before it. Sure some things need to be thrown out or modified but basically
"Little remains carved in stone for long" is not true.
<<<<In my opinion, Scheele doesn't resort to the paranormal--whatever that is--in his system.>>>>
Isn't this an oxymoron. Simplifying the sentence it sounds like this: In my opinion He doesn't do 'this', I don't know what 'this' is.
How do you know he does not resort to the paranormal if you don't know what paranormal is?
[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited March 20, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited March 21, 2001).]
