(meteorobs) Repost- Clear evidence forMeteoroidejecta/outgassing.

[Chris Peterson]

Evidence can have multiple interpretations. And unless everybody puts forth 
their interpretations, and opens things to discussion, truth is unlikely to 
advance. Taking a fresh look at things is good science; ignoring evidence 
that appears to argue against your position is bad science.

Potentially good ideas are not squelched by a closer look at the 
observational evidence. They only go away (or more likely, fail to meet 
their potential) if the developers of those ideas don't pursue them.

Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Brunone" <peter at brunone.com>
To: "Global Meteor Observing Forum" <meteorobs at meteorobs.org>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Repost- Clear evidence 
forMeteoroidejecta/outgassing.


> Chris,
>
> Good advice about improving one's processes, *but*...
>
>> Certainly, there's nothing remotely scientific about "stick[ing] with
> your
>> beliefs" in the face of evidence to the contrary. That's pretty much the
>
>> definition of pseudoscience.
>
> Evidence can be a slippery thing. We had plenty of "evidence" that life
> could spring spontaneously from nonliving matter, until Louis Pasteur took
> your advice and created better tests.  Certainly take advantage of all the
> wisdom and tools at your disposal, but don't be afraid to take a fresh
> critical look at things either.
>
> Pardon the butting-in; your point about saturation is important, but I'd
> hate to see a potentially good idea squelched too soon.
>
> Back to lurking now...
>
> Peter