[Valandil]

Having read much of the EB, as well as using wikipedia regularily, i wish to note, in no particular order, a few issues the spring up here.

The whole history of classical argument and debate has borne out one fact: debate is not about truth, it is about the winning of arguments. However, if a claim is valid (it is 'true'), argument will bear this out. In this sense, Dave's metheod of argument is somewhat valid, even if it wouldn't work too well in court.

It is likely that everything we humans ever think or achieve will be wrong, excpet the caliph's wisdom: This too shall pass. That does not however mean that we should dismiss all knowledge, nor ignore Locke in favour of Socrates. Empiricism is valid, insomuch as we get closer to some truth, though we never attain it. Accordingly, to dismiss knowledge that is as yet unproven or disproven seems to me counterproductive. I wouldn't want to have valid science disregarded for such a reason. On the other hand, when making a judgement on the unknown, social and chonological factors must be considered: bias, inaccuracy of instuments, etc. This does not govern the decision, but it must be weighed.

The historical examples you cite, to defend your position or attack another's, just a tiny speck of science. How can someone quote four historic scientific failures and say "this backs up my point", without considering the forty thousand successes, or the forty thousand more failures that we produce now? The reverse applies as well. This is epistomologically void.

By the way, Evil Dave, popular magazines are more likely to have web sites than scholarly journals.

For fun, I referance Alan Sokal, Social Text, "Transgressing the Boundaries..."
Scholarly journal, PhD, no accuracy.
I also referance Encyclopedia Britannica, Scotland: "The country has no parliament..."
And for good measure, wikipedia: "Sheena, queen of the jungle, is a monarch living in borneo...".

If the history of mankind is wrought in errors, perhaps most surprising is that we know anything.

"Gladely wolde he lerne, and gladely teche..."
"Cogito ergo sum"
"Je ne sais rien que je ne sais pas"