OT: Evolution

[Simon Bowring]

>This is also an interesting statement.  Completely contrary to the
>scientific process.  If definitions of scientific terms have 
>lifespans of less than 10 years, how can humanity possibly make
>great progress?  This makes no sense at all.

Definitions change over time, US dictionaries in particular are
less likely to have a good definition of evolution for example,
because the "theory" is relitively poorly accepted over there (tee 
hee).  I thought it was your argument that languages evolve (but 
maybe it was someone else's - I'm getting lost :-( ?

>Science is, at least in part, if not great part, successful due
>to building upon work previously done by others.  
Agreed.

>The immutability of the definition of basic terms allows this to happen.
Examples: 
1. An atom was the smallest particle than can exist, nowadays
   it's neither the smallest nor a particle!
2. The Universe used to be "everything", now we (may) mave multiple 
   universes (the "multiverse").

Almost nothing is science is "immutable", if it were then science
would be dogma and not science.  You'll probably agree that, 
science advances as a (chaotic) series of (usually small incremental) 
improvements to existing models - unless you think we've "discovered"
or "know" everything already, then there's nothing immutable in the
whole of science!

Simon