Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!husc6!endor!greg
From: greg@endor.harvard.edu (Greg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Mind Reading
Message-ID: <447@husc6.HARVARD.EDU>
Date: Fri, 17-Oct-86 15:22:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: husc6.447
Posted: Fri Oct 17 15:22:47 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Oct-86 23:04:25 EDT
References: <217@sri-arpa.ARPA> <3598@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Sender: news@husc6.HARVARD.EDU
Reply-To: greg@endor.UUCP (Greg)
Organization: Harvard
Lines: 15

In article <2577@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes:
>He is at least attempting to define his ideas in scientific terms, so that
>they can be evaluated.   Until you do so, your mind reading may or may not
>be real, but does not belong in net.physics.  There MUST be another newsgroup
>more suited to your postings.  Please find it.

Although I agree that Mitsu's posting does not belong in net.physics, I think
the argument in favor of scientific terms can be made stronger:

An idea that cannot be evaluated (such as Mitsu's claims of mind-reading) is
neither true nor false, neither real nor unreal.  It is a non-statement about
reality.  It adds nothing to an understanding of nature.

"This isn't true; it isn't even false!" - Wolfgang Pauli
gregregreg