good science?

[Giovanni Maga]

In article <3onn0c$rk at newsbf02.news.aol.com>, edregis at aol.com (EdRegis)
wrote:

 
> The jury is in and the case is closed on much of science.  No further
> evidence need be considered for much of what constitutes science.  It's
> just stuff that's known about nature, and "known" means it's true, not
> just almost, kinda, we think it's true.  
> 
> I realize that this viewpioint contradicts the reigning philosophy of
> science theology.  Sorry.
> 
> Ed
> edregis at aol.com/"186,000 miles per second is not just a good idea, it's
> the law!"

It does not only contradict the phylosophy or science (which anyway is
man-made and so must also subjected to revisions and criticisms), but also
is the basis of the same feeling that led Inquisition to judge Galileo or
that led people to consier Darwin just another crazy guy...simply thinking
that all was known and required no further reconsideration in light of new
findings. I know probably you think *but we are far more clever than those
people and we know how to make science.*. But if we think that our Science
is definitive and needs no criticism, what's the difference with another
theology? Ask yourself what could think scientists next century of our
science...I think that everything we know now is right as long as it does
not contradict new evidences. We already had to rethink lots of arguments
in cell biology and molecular biology only in the last 10 ys. Many things
or processes we thought to have understood turned out to be far more
complexed. Even for the few basic rules we know, we do not know all the
exceptions. It's easy to verify that all our knowledge is continuosly
evolving. The case is not closed about nature.
maga at vetbio.unizh.ch