"Eray Ozkural exa" <erayo at bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message
news:fa69ae35.0402100312.46e9deb8 at posting.google.com...
> The initial reaction such critical remarks
> may well be indignation and incredulity.
> Ho can a flourishing science be fundamentally
> in error?...
> Eray Ozkural
I'm =not= saying anything, one way or the
other with respect to the positions cited in
your post, linked-to above, but this one
thing is Simple, Eray.
Why did Ptoemy put Earth at 'the center'?
Why did the Alchemists 'think' that they
could 'transmute' elements via Chemical
Why didn't Newton do SR & GR?
[And why didn't Planck see Continuity,
and Darwin, not WDB2T? :-]
It's always the same.
What's accepted grows out of what's
been accepted - until it cannot sustain
itself in the face of accumulating evidence.
With respect to Neuroscience, there
has been a 'leaning' toward Ancient
Erroneous conceptualizations that,
when they are eliminated, will, necessarily,
leave the Science broadly-transformed.
Cheers, ken [k. p. collins]