>I'm curious what your science background is since you are so well-informed >about Rosalind Franklin, among other topics? I suppose that I should clarify that, lest I make any misrepresentations, overt or implied. A large portion of my coursework was in philosophy (although my major was in English... proving that I had no sense of economic realities), with the focus being on the philosophy and history of science. [1] I am *not* a scientist, but I like to be as literate of the sciences as is humanly possible for a layman to be. As such, one day I'll be reading biology articles in Nature and the next I'll be struggling through articles on Quantum Cosmology on the arXive server. I make absolutely no pretense of being the equal of any scientist, within their field, but I do like to believe that I have a good overall understanding of a broad range of fields. In particular, I am very interested in the dynamics of science, which is how I came upon the Franklin controversy. I absolutely *hate* the common view of science as some sort of elite and pristine endeavor practiced in ivory towers by emotionless intellects. I think that a lot of the impression that science is dehumanizing stems directly from this stereotype. I think that science *is* special. I know of no other epistemological system that has such a brilliant record of demonstrable success, but I think that it's important to understand that a large part of that success is based upon philosophical underpinnings which assume that scientists are human, and thus fallible (hence the importance of falsifiability [2] in the sciences, the critical role of peer review, and the reward system that is in place to laude those who *overturn* established theory). I very much want the general public to understand *why* science works. I feel that most people don't, which is why I think that it is all too easy for people to dismiss scientific opinions that clash with their own ideologies. -- Andrew Lias [1] One reason that I eventually abandoned philosophy was because a lot of current philosophers have an active hostility towards the sciences. For ever Dennett there are a dozen postmodernist purveyors of word salad. Never the less, philosophy and science ought to be natural companions and that philosophy, as a discipline, approaches its best when it considers the implications of scientific discoveries. [2] As an aside, I remember a very frustrating debate why my opponent, no matter how many times it would be explained to him, thought that if something was falsifiable then it must, therefore, be false. _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963