Christopher Maloney wrote: > You forgot to mention the other phrase I used, "patently absurd"....Now, when I >dismiss the concept of zombies out of hand, I don't > think I'm being unscientific. Quite the contrary -- it feels to > me like those who ponder their (possible) existence are being > unscientific. ... >
> I really didn't want to have this conversation -- go bother > someone else about it. Please just accept that I've dismissed > the notion to my own satisfaction. > Sigh. Calling something "patently absurd" without giving specific evidence of absurdity (i.e., logical contradiction or experimental falsification) is hardly how science should be practiced. Everett's original relative-sate idea was dismissed by many physicists of the day simply on the grounds that it lead to "absurdities," which just meant conclusions that, because of subjective bias, they found uncongenial. Point made, end of topic unless someone else has something specific to add. Steve Price, M.D.