Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yetti.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!yetti!oz
From: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: ROSEN vs Wishful Thinkers (?) - (Scientification)
Message-ID: <256@yetti.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 17:41:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: yetti.256
Posted: Thu Sep 19 17:41:48 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Sep-85 02:40:26 EDT
References: <253@yetti.UUCP> <1727@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Organization: York University Computer Science
Lines: 51
Keywords: science, wishful, etc.
Summary: 

>> 	You use the lewd and lascivious argumentative technique of claiming 
>> 	that there are *scientific* *results* that support your arguments. 
>
>Hey, who is making the claim of something completely contrary to scientific
>thought and knowledge?  Me?  Or you?  Where does the burden of proof lie?
>
	I do not remember claiming anything anti-scientific !! What is
	this all about ???

>> 	[in smaller print: those who do not agree are *unscientific*! whew!]
>
>You betchum, red rider.
>
	No. Just blue rider. Are you trying to say that if I am sceptical
	about the claim that the universe is absolutely deterministic,
	than I am un-scientific ???
>
>I'll summarize this:  it's amazing how you speak of me being wrong for
>believing in the work of science, yet it is all right for YOU to claim
>"science has shown that classical determinism is dead, which is a point
>for me, so I'll believe THAT one".  Funny, isn't that a perfect example
>of having anthropocentric faith in science which you and others like you
>accuse me of:  "WE, the great all powerful humans, cannot determine a
>determining cause here, thus there MUST be no cause and no determinism!!!
>YAY!!!!!"
>
	YAY!! indeed !! Obviously, you did not get the point. *You* are just as
	much a "wishful thinker" as anyone else you accused of being a wishful
	thinker. You see, *you* believe in absolute determinism, and *wish* that
	was really the case. On the other hand, the same science that came up
	with that model of the universe, is now has a new model, which
	happens to be more probabilistic then deterministic. But, *hold on* !!
	We *know* that the universe is deterministic !!! Science said so !!!
	[why don't you train your sceptical eye on yourself for a change ??]

	The point is, red ryder, you choose to be sceptical about
	everything else except your own *knowledge*. Your attachment
	to classic determinism is no different than someone's attachment
	to the concept of "soul", or christian beliefs, or astrology. The
	only difference is that you hide behind "years of scientific
	inquiry", which, appearently, does not hold up very well anymore.
	[just a claim you say ??? Perhaps I know something *you* don't.]

Oz	
-- 
Usenet: [decvax|allegra|linus|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz
Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti]
	You see things; and you say "WHY?"
	But I dream things that never were;
	and say "WHY NOT?"
			G. Bernard Shaw (Back to Methuselah)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com