On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 12:34:52PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > My contention is that the unspoken attitude of people affects other > people but not cars, neutron, Higgs bosons, etc. > > Your contention appears to be that it doesn't and that I'm also > unscientific to think it is.
Once again, you have completely missed the point. That nasty mental block again, I guess. That is NOT my contention, and I stated before that it is not. > IMHO, what we are really arguing about is whether people's attitudes > matter. I'm not arguing that at all. > The examples you cite are inanimate objects. I'll agree that > computers, cars, virtual partons, etc. are not affected by our > attitude. But, I do think people are. You appear to say that's mere > superstition, and I'm opposed to science and logic when I contend > this. > > Dan M. > > What in the world do you think my contention was? I repeatedly stated > that I was considering mundane effects only; that I didn't consider > the action of God changing because of the prayer in my analysis, etc. When you state that prayer has an effect, it is just silly to even mention unless you a referring to a direct effect. So that is what I assumed you meant. I pointed out a few of the infinite number of other things that can have an indirect effect just as much as prayer. It is silly to single out prayer and say it has an effect and not the millions of other things that have such an indirect effect. It is not good science, not even good social science. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
