Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decwrl!williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402)
From: williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Wishy-washy
Message-ID: <342@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 11:55:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.342
Posted: Thu Sep  5 11:55:21 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 04:16:09 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 19



	If the people contributing to this newsgroup were seriously into
wishy-washy thinking, as you have described, Rich, then certainly we
would be forced to agree with you. To summarize my feelings in one
complete sentence, the evidence is only *partially* conclusive. If
this is the definition of wishy-washy, then I am guilty. You speak a
great deal about science, but I suspect you have very little practice
at it. I suspect you derive most of your understanding from books. In
experimentally verifying the foundations of some of your assertions,
you will be unable to observe these phenomena to an adequate degree
of significance. You can't prove hard determinism, you can't even
demonstrate hard determinism. That is exactly why it is called a

			" THEORY "

	Please recognize it for what it really is.

							John.