Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site hpfcms.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!bill
From: bill@hpfcla.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: RE:  Weird Science
Message-ID: <45200016@hpfcms.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Aug-85 16:09:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpfcms.45200016
Posted: Wed Aug 21 16:09:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 21:08:38 EDT
Organization: 21 Aug 85 14:09:00 MDT
Lines: 102

[]

I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that at least part of the following tirade
(which ducks more questions than it answers) is due to the article
"Science and Fallibility".  The quoted material if from Rich Rosen.

>Science stinks!  Anyone who thinks science holds the answers is a fool.  What
>about love, beauty, art, poetry?  What does science do to all the things we
>hold near and dear?  It dissects them to the point where they no longer have
>any resemblance to the way they were originally, thus destroying the notions
>we believe in.  I say the hell with science!! No one has the right to dissect
>my beliefs.  If I want to believe in lies that's my business.  Who are they to
>shatter the foundations of my beliefs?

Looks like various postings here, my article included, have shattered YOUR
beliefs, Rich!  I really don't see the purpose for this kind of retaliation,
though.  Yes, what you write here sounds ridiculous, if it were true.  But
it isn't.  How 'bout you take a particular point and logically (and calmly)
tear it apart?  If it's wrong, that should be easy enough.  If there's
scientific proof for your assertions, I should be able to recognize that and
be quiet.  However, all I've seen from you is a statement of your beliefs,
followed by a statement of allegiance to science, followed by tirades if
anyone dares to differ.

But to address what you've said above:  as I've already said, IF science were
able to prove beyond doubt that certains things that I hold "near and dear"
were false, I would accept that.  However, science is not (yet?) able to do
that with things like love, beauty, art, etc.  Thus, the point I made earlier
is still valid:  analysis at the current time is inconclusive using current
scientific techniques.

As usual, in your responses, you've by-passed logic and resorted to tirades
of ridiculous exaggerations.  I never said "to hell with science".  I never
said that it was "dissecting my beliefs" or "shattering the foundations of
my beliefs".  I never said science was "destroying the notions I believe in".
Thus, if there was any point to the above, it's lost in the muck of lies
you've thrown in to totally distort my view of science (if it is indeed my
view you are distorting).

>And what has science ever given this world anyway?  Weapons of war, the black
>plague, hatred, venereal disease, electricity, natural disasters, religious
>intolerance.  And don't go telling me it's not science or scientists who
>gave us these things, that these things came from application of real
>knowledge by misguided, greedy, or evil people.  You know that's not true
>and no amount of "evidence" to the contrary will convince me otherwise.
>I *know* the truth about science, and I'm not going to allow scientists to
>change my beliefs about anything.

Well, HAS science given us some bad things or not?  No?  You don't know
history very well.  If you'll re-read my article, however, you'll find
that I also acknowledged that science has given us many wonderful things
as well.  More gross distortions, Rich.  I'm probably as open-minded to
scientific discovery as anyone.  It's you who are closed-minded, but to
the opposite extreme of believing in science to the point of death, and not
being able to accept that perhaps science cannot explain all things right
now.

>Why, scientists can't even prove that the notions I hold about free will,
>souls, ESP, the Bermuda triangle, ghosts in my living room, or me being
>the reincarnation of Isadora Duncan are false!!!  All they can say is
>that my evidence isn't "verifiable", thus it can't be taken for granted
>that it is the truth.  Whatever the hell "verifiable" means...

Science disproves the existence of everything you don't believe in, Rich,
but simply because you so desparately WANT science to disprove them.  In
fact, all you can really say, "scientifically", is that testing is
inconclusive.  Again, I never mentioned ghosts, reincarnation, ESP, or any
of the other meaningless dribble in the above.  Sheesh!

>Oh, I'm sorry, I don't know why I posted this.  It must have been a result
>of causality being smashed.  :-)

I don't know why either.  It certainly contributes nothing to either side.

>"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day
> to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human
> being can fight and never stop fighting."  - e. e. cummings
>      Rich Rosen	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

Oh, you poor, poor, shackled martyr, you!  Poor baby is fighting so hard
against such overwhelming persecutions!  Give me a break, Rich.

What really gets me, though, are your continued statements that anyone who
"limits" science is really, deep-down, scared of having his "nears and
dears" torn apart and shown to be false.  And yet you respond to my (?)
last article with the tirade above?  WHO'S REALLY SCARED, RICH?  Aren't
you just as doggedly defending your own side?  Why defend something to
such ludicrous extremes unless you yourself are scared!  Speaking for
myself, science doesn't scare me, yet I recognize that it currently has
limitations.  It's methods are suited well for examining some things, and
not so well for examining others.  I don't see why this is so hard to see.
When or if the day comes when science discovers how to examine the things
it could not before, I will welcome what it has to say, even though I
believe in the reality of many things like art, beauty, etc.

You're scared, Rich, and you've succumbed to wishful thinking if you think
science is able to substantiate your assertions at the present time.  By
the way, if you have any scientific proof that these things don't exist,
please share them.  But please, no more sarcastic tirades - they really
don't contribute very much.

Bill Gates