Sitat av
KultNick
Om en vitenskapsmann hadde funnet en stein, hadde han gjort nødvendige undersøkelser for å forsikre seg om at det faktisk var et nytt stoff, før han hadde påstått det.
I mellomtiden er det et potensielt nytt stoff, som venter på nok informasjon til å kunne avkreftes eller bekreftes. Om det kommer frem at stoffet finnes allerede, betyr det ikke at stoffet ikke var potensielt nytt da det ble oppdaget i steinen.
Kan du komme med eksempler på de tilfellene du viser til?
http://books.google.no/books/about/W...4C&redir_esc=y
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org...j72/levins.htm
http://www.amazon.com/When-science-f.../dp/156265005X
"Two or three decades ago the expectation was that infectious disease would decline and be replaced by chronic disease as the major health problem in the world. This expectation was labelled the epidemiological transition. It remained the prevailing dogma in public health even after the resurgence of malaria, tuberculosis, cholera and dengue, and the appearance of AIDS, Lyme disease, Ebola virus, Marburg virus, Lassa fever, toxic shock syndrome and Legionnaires' disease.
As each new disease appeared it was studied urgently and knowledge of the infective agent, how it was transmitted and possible approaches to treatment, appeared quickly. Genes were sequenced, tests invented and surveillance systems designed to detect new cases rapidly. But, despite all this, new diseases continue to appear and old ones continue to reinvade.
That science was caught by surprise by the resurgence of infectious disease is in itself not surprising. Surprise in science is inevitable because we have to study the new by treating it just like the old. The new is like the old. This makes science possible. But it is also unlike the old. This makes science necessary and simple experience insufficient. But it also makes surprise inevitable and guarantees that we eventually meet situations where our old ideas no longer hold good and perhaps never did."
Sist endret av Kusetjuv; 11. januar 2012 kl. 21:07.