wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], new_morning_blank_slate
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "Nelson" <nelsonriddle2001@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], new_morning_blank_slate
> > > >
> > > > Well, maybe I am still missing his point. But he appears to be
> saying
> > > > that some things that seem "magical", later become scientific
> truths.
> > > > I don't think Kurtz would argue that. The history of science
is that
> > > > things unknown become known. At the turn of the century some
> prominent
> > > > scientists proclaimed "we know everything now". Boy were they in
> for a
> > > > shock. Radio would have seemed a paranormal pehomenon in 1850.
> By 1920
> > > > or so it was normal. Kurtz would not dispute that. It seems to me
> > > > that Nelson was implying he would. If not, my mistake.
> > > >
> > > > However, "that some things that seem "magical", later become
> > > > scientific truths" does not imply, as Nelson may be doing,
that all
> > > > things magical later become scientific truths. Some things are
just
> > > > bunk, and will always be bunk.
> > > >
> > > > The Arthur C. Clarke quote is germane -- "Any sufficiently
advanced
> > > > technology is indistinguishable from magic." However, its
> important to
> > > > understand that the following corallary is not true "Any magic
will
> > > > someday be seen as advanced technology." That is lots of
paranormal
> > > > stuff today is bunk, will always be bunk. And some will become
> science
> > > > in the future.
> > > >
> > > +++ Could we say then that some things we see or expierience today
> > > will be proven not to have happened oneday because there is no
> > > scientific explaination? just curious,, N.
> >
> >
> > I don't follow. Can you give specific examples of what you are
> > referring to.
> >
> snip
> +++ I once was at a meeting of three couples where coffee was served.
> It was an eight cup coffee pot and each person had at least two
> cups.
> I conclude that, in some cases, science is irrelevant. N.
While I don't see why your riddle is outside the realm of logic (the
couples were not independent -- AB BC and CD, thus ABC&D each had two
cups).
While your conclusiuon does not follow from your illustration,I agree
with the conclusion. Of course science is not particularly (curently
at least) relevant to lots of things: beauty, love etc. It can tell us
some things about cultural and gentic conditioning, perception and its
traps -- all relevant to love and beauty, but far from comprehensive.
I don't consult a scientist to figure out if the sunset is beautiful,
or if I am in love. Or to figure out Love and Beauty's nature.
My favorite all time joke, illustrative of the limits of science is
... 63!!!
For those who don'tremember 63, its the one where the drunk is
unsuccessfully looking for his car keys under the streetlamp. A
passerby asks whats the matter blah blah .. and then asks "well where
did you lose your kyes."
"Over there said the drunk."
"Well why are you looking for them here."
The drunk answers, "The lights much better here."
Some use the light of science to look for stuff where science cannot
shine. (Nor the sun).
Like a guy with a hammer, every problem is a nail.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Religion and spirituality | Maharishi mahesh yogi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
