----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Claxton" <ddclaxton at earthlink.net>
You're dodging again. This isn't the same as your paraphrase "he thought its inconsistencies were a sign of being incomplete."
=============
It's trivially the case that scientific theories are incomplete.
GTR recently came in at 99.995% consistent with astrophysical data post-Hubble yada yada.
Yes, it was several data anomalies several decimal places out that led to the overthrow of lots of Newtonian-LaPlacean models; but as Paul Churchland, Patrick Grim, Nicholas Rescher and others have noted, the idea of a final, complete scientific theory is incoherent. Heartfield and his ilk want a perfection from science it cannot grant. Hell, by Heartfield's ramblings on this thread, science isn't even possible.
Ian