On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:33:08 GMT, "Alexander Ibrahim" wrote:
>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3b73695f.15855890@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
[...]
>

>> Ah, "Sasquatch"...;-)

>The project is not a "go" yet, so I won't confirm or deny.

Ahhhhh.....;-)
[...]
>I do think that many scientists are unnaturally closed minded. I find that
>odd, because scientists are supposed to be open minded and inquisitive. I
>think that they are so afraid of being ridiculed that they desire to reject
>even the appearance of consideration for such an "offbeat" topic.

Unfortunately (or, fortunately? ;-), open-mindedness
is not a characteristic of any particular field, but
of the individual, often modified by the needs/fears
associated with one's life-position (at the macro/micro
levels) - though the "image" of some fields would
(often incorrectly) lead one to believe that its
members would tend toward open/closed-mindedness...;-)
(I've run across closed-minded artists and scientists,
and open-minded clergy and accountants...;-)
I observe, though, that the general tendency toward
or away from "open-mindedness" shifts with time, and
sometimes it drifts toward "uncriticality", where the
truly established knowledge is placed on the same level
with speculation - often not a good thing, since it
devalues the standards upon which one can build knowledge.
Usually, striking a good balance between respecting that
which is solidly and thoughtfully/thoroughly established,
and the speculative possibilities, is the best practice
(while always evaluating the standards used in
establishing that balance...).