Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ptsfa!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!husc6!hao!boulder!pell From: pell@boulder.UUCP Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med,talk.rumors Subject: Re: Chris imitates Life? Message-ID: <1306@sigi.Colorado.EDU> Date: Fri, 5-Jun-87 20:21:08 EDT Article-I.D.: sigi.1306 Posted: Fri Jun 5 20:21:08 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 7-Jun-87 08:37:41 EDT References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM> <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> <225@chemstor.UUCP> <1199@isl1.ri.cmu.edu> <283@chemstor.UUCP> Sender: news@sigi.Colorado.EDU Reply-To: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Lines: 61 Keywords: Missing dimension Xref: utgpu sci.research:141 sci.med:2033 talk.rumors:749 (Bob Weigel) writes: > >>(Christopher Young): >> >>These types eventually show up everywhere, don't they? Just like weeds. > > > Wow Chris,.. you write your own material??? Actually, my "type" as > I guess you thought by ripping my last paragraph out from its groundwork >everyone would forget what was written right before that, and you could draw >a steriotypical conclusion of who I am for all those incapable of thinking for >themselves. It seems that you are also trying to define science for me? Is >not science simply the compilation and correlation of sensory data, towards >the future prediction of events?? Did anyone ever really get down and say >"only information compiled by out external senses >(ie. eyes, ears, etc.) allowed >here? > >------------------------------- bob, I agree that chris' comment was a non-sequitor. But I must add that in your choice to reply to this "straw man" non-argument you have lowered yourself to the same level. I don't think chris meant his comment to be a logical rebuttal to you, But as an off the cuff remark. I, on the other hand, really would have liked to have you respond to my comments regarding the fact that the very thing to which you object in science is inherent in your own cosmology. You apparently would rather comment on one liners like chris' rather than respond to what was (in my less-than-humble opinion) an intelligent comment. I wish to add that my mail concerning my posting was quite possitive. But, sadly, I've received none from you. So bob, if you agree that god is the prime efficient cause and all things derive through the obvious chain of causation from her, are you not drawn to the conclusion that you are the "product of history"--the same thing that upset you about science? About what defines science: I will not debate with you whether science can admit evidence not limited to the common senses--I will grant your possition for the moment. But, the test of falsification IS a crucial part of what constitutes a scientific theory. Briefly, it must be possible to imagine some sensory evidence that can disprove a theory, for it to be considered scientific. If any sensory evidence is merely incorporated into the belief by qualifying the definitions, the beleif cannot be considered scientific. The "scientific god" dies the death of a thousand qualifications. I wished to point out that science and religion are of different realms. If you wish to adhere to your possition that you can have a scientifically sound faith, I ask that you respond to the points above and in my original posting. Anyone interested in the original posting can get it from me. To the fellow who asked where he could find published works of mine on the topic: (incase my mail to you bounced) such publications exist . But I can recommend far more competent commentary on the topic than my own. tony (few degrees are worth remembering--and none are worth predicting) P.S. sorry for the poorly thought out response, but I am pressed for time.