Larry's suggestion sounds good. I did not read much of the original post
because so sweeping a generalization as "modern science went off the rails"
was just too off-putting for me. But in an actual debate, as Larry
suggests, it might be fruitful.
P.S. The phrase reminds me of a brief conversation I had with a woman
sitting next to me in the Pace U cafeteria during a Left Forum there. I had
mentioned my macular degeneration; she said that there was a curre for it if
I checked some web site, encasing her suggestion in some sweeping assertion
that the medical doctors were all wrong on everything (or something like
that). Such statements plunge us deep into the delusionist heart of
I am a bit confused about who wrote the statement below Pedros or Joel. On
the EcoRev list it looks like Pedros wrote it.
Anyway, if Joel is on this list, I would like to discuss part of the
statement with him on the list.
When Joel writes that "modern science went off the rails," one of the three
points he make is about organic chemistry:
Meanwhile, in the 1830s again, the chemical industry was first able to
synthesize organic compounds, giving the impression that life, formerly
thought to be due to a vital force, was only a matter of chemicals. This
remains the basis of all modern biology and medicine, while the much more
important energetic factors are ignored.
I am a practicing organic chemist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick,
NJ, who has been doing research in organic chemistry for more than 40 years.
I would like to discuss with him on this list the "more important energetic
factors" that are ignored. I do not know what is being ignored?
If he would like to do this, we should probably establish some ground rules
first. I am not sure what I mean exactly because I have not had a
discussion like this before.
Joel are you willing to try?