At 05:56 PM 7/2/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In email@example.com, Michael L Cunningham <bogeystar@e...>
> > At 04:40 PM 7/1/2003 +0000, you wrote:
> > >--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Michael L Cunningham <bogeystar@e...>
> > >wrote:
> > You didn't read my sentence and I'm well aware of Wegener and plate
> > tectonics. Most scoffed at the theory until it passed its
> > phase in the late 50's.
>You said "unless it failed its experimentation phase," which is not
>quite the same thing. I'm not aware of any experiments that plate
>tectonics failed. The theory was initially mocked - not entirely
>unreasonably - for its lack of a mechanism. I don't think that's quite
>that same thing as an "experimentation phase" (not sure how you'd do
>experimentation on continental drift, in any case).
Experimentation phase in this sense would be gathering data from the
various land masses showing connecting rock formations. This phase
has been proven.
Most theories will get mocked. It's human nature. The mocking dies off
with the amount of evidence presented. When the evidence proves the
theory, the mocking usually has stopped well before the scientific community
accepts the theory as fact.
Cold fusion suffered an enormous amount of mocking since the researchers
continued to hedge on how they exactly did their research. When they finally
released the research, the mocking got louder and louder because the "facts"
they presented were not supported by the evidence... or lack of. :)