Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!ucbvax!nike!caip!unirot!cjr
From: cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci
Subject: Re: Contempt prior to Investigation
Message-ID: <433@unirot.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Mar-86 15:54:00 EST
Article-I.D.: unirot.433
Posted: Fri Mar 28 15:54:00 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Apr-86 00:46:01 EST
References: <316@bu-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Public Access Un*x, Piscataway NJ (The Soup Kitchen)
Lines: 67
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:4819 net.sci:680
Summary: Bad definitions of evidence

In article <316@bu-cs.UUCP>, bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes:
> >>It's mighty clear to me that your Western definition of evidence is to
> >>limited to be worth anything.
> 
> >	Western science does indeed admit it when it's wrong, and is constantly
> >incorporating new ideas -IF THEY'RE PROVEN.
> 
> Yes, but the argument is that the method by which they accept
> something as 'proven' is faulty. I dunno, works well for me but I'm
> always open to something useful. Isn't this going round and round in
> circles? The statements you are objecting to are purposely
> disregarding the scientific method as being of insufficient power to
> delve into whatever secrets the writer was interested in. Fine, gets
> us to the moon but as far as dealing with each other and ourselves,
> well, science seems to offer almost nil, thus the perceived vacuum
> and the attempts to fill such. And, as much as I love it, I have to
> admit that science denies that which it cannot explain (not always,
> not even often, but when it does, annoyingly so.)
> 
> I don't think this argument is going to get anyone anywhere, science
> is a nature religion rejecting intuitions of humans in favor of
> reproducible experiment with fairly strict rules of methodology
> (not that they won't start with an intuition, they just won't end
> with one.)

This is so true, man. These strict rules of methodology serve only to
prolifitrate the dogmatic Western scineitific thinking. Science denies
what it cannot explain. When someone comes up with a perfectly good
explanation for something, like the existence of God, or the ability of
the human minds to use telephonetic powers to predict past events, or
the existence of a soul that lives on after we die, stupid science has
to come along and complain that there isn't any evidence any of these
things happen, and it just upchucks it away like it was all some garbage.
Bummer! This is why we need to shout down these dogmatic scientists as much
as possible, so that their ridculous ideas need not be heard, and I applawed
people like Micheal Ellis who do this so well.

> The sort of opposite argument seen here is a 'human'
> religion accepting intuitions over the need for reproducibility or
> proof, the fact that we can conceive of it must mean it has some
> element of truth, if it can't be proven then the system which sought
> to prove it must be wrong.

Right on! What you are talking about is the use of the Eastern mind,
accpeting intuitons and subjective deeply felt personal feelings over
stupid sicneitific reproducability or proof, because we know deep inside
our like, minds that we are right.

> No argument is likely to resolve these two views, they are dealing
> in entirely different worlds.

You are so right, man! It reminds me of the current argument about wether
or not the moon exists or not when your not looking at it. I mean, like,
someone else may be looking at it, and it may exist in their comic subspace,
but does that means it really exists for you when your not lookin at it?
It's sort of like that deep saying. If a tree falls in the forest and it
doesn't make a sound, was there anyone there to hear it? You can't answer
questions like that using stupid scineitific standards, because events like
that aren't reproducable at the drop of a tree. I mean, this is a special
kind of event that only happens when your just in the right frame of minds,
after having really heavy chemical experiences that aren't easily dupelicated.
Yet scientists will discard our experiencal data just because we failed to
live up to THEIR standards! They are really uncool dudes.
-- 
Peace,
	CJ			(Charles J. Riordan - unirot!cjr)
				(Public Access Un*x - The Soup Kitchen)