On Thursday, April 11, 2013 1:27:44 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
> >> After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who
>>> values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously.
>> > What about Schrödinger?
> Schrödinger didn't say "There is nothing in numerology or astrology which
> is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology" nor did he say "I couldn't
> have any more interest in astrology if I tried. I have been analyzing
> charts since 1988. Astrology and numerology are by far the most interesting
> and useful subjects that I have ever encountered in my life" and he also
> didn't say "Most scientific papers I have looked at contain a huge amount
> of mumbo jumbo."
I don't expect others to take astrology or numerology seriously. I didn't
until I actually investigated them myself. What I found was interesting,
partly because they point to an understanding of principles which are
neither completely real nor completely unreal. It appears that these are
the kinds of principles which are beneath and behind rationality itself.
As far as my comments on modern cosmology and scientific jargon, I would
expect that more enlightened minds would be able to see our current belief
system in the context of a history of belief systems which were each in
their time considered the final truth but which eventually proved
It may not be obvious to you that the current system is taking on water,
but it is to me. For every nugget of useful truth discovered in the current
system, how much time is wasted weaving a web of perceived legitimacy?
> John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.