But did ya go to the crossroads and say the right words? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd60nI4sa9A
-Don On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 6:55 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I made a pact with the devil myself GW, but he didn't show. I have > generally found him as unreliable as God. I might get to believe in > politics if we find a way to redistribute the Haitians, establish > decent homes, services and productive jobs. I might even support Pat > Robertson if he could do that. > > On 14 Jan, 00:01, [email protected] wrote: >> Isn't it refreshing to know there are people like Pat Robertson who is >> convinced that he is able to scientifically account for catastrophic >> occurrences such as the Haitian disaster. He understands that 200 years ago >> Haity (I guess he means every Hatian) made a pact with the devil. And now >> 200 years ago they are getting their due. Now how come I couldn't have >> figured that out for myself.; It is so obvious and neat and clean. If only >> we had more thinkers lie him. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: archytas <[email protected]> >> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wed, Jan 13, 2010 6:31 pm >> Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: science >> >> The sum of energy in the universe is often considered as zero. >> Science is clearly not just about answers. Most of us would say it is >> about asking questions that can be resolved by observation and >> experiment, one reason string theories may not qualify as physics >> (yet). >> Problems in social science often arise because we are dealing with >> interpretations rather than 'nature' (though science accepts >> observations are theory laden and hence our views on what nature >> 'is'). Hence 'hermeneutics', though I feel these are unreliable >> rather than 'guaranteeing truth' in Gadamer's dogma. >> At some point in any enquiry we are likely to be in a creative >> thinking phase in an imagination in which anything goes if we can >> think it up. This is needed to break up dogma, even if we end up >> putting it together again, perhaps with a better idea of how it works. >> The 'observation states' of observers are often excluded from >> consideration, generally a mistake across all the disciplines. >> There is still a prevalent notion that one can somehow achieve an >> objective state of observation and thinking. On analysis, this turns >> out to have a great deal to do with manners and connected social >> dogmas. General argumentation contains many rhetorical tricks and >> plays with words, often to conceal lying and ignorance and present an >> objective voice that is nothing of the kind and actually appeals to >> ignorance and soaked-up tradition. >> Science tries to makes its assumptions patent. Often we get very >> precise, as in our understanding of CO2 absorption of long-wave >> energies and subsequent photon-puking; but to pretend this in global >> warming models (the precision) is not science. Lay people get into a >> real mess on this point. >> We can only be agnostic about god in thought. This very agnosticism >> is probably at the root of scientific consideration of theory and >> evidence - the trend is towards consideration of theories as under- >> determined by evidence, and evidence as more worthy of epistemic faith >> than theory at any time we know of (yet). >> None of this rules out consideration of religion. I broadly consider >> most of it a mess of lies, but this does not stop me admiring someone >> who has found peace and wishes to share that peace (as long as this >> doesn't involve daft gestures of walking towards hostile aliens, bible >> aloft - though they might be a useful, heroic diversion). >> >> On 13 Jan, 17:15, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On 13 Jan, 15:58, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > On 13 Jan., 12:21, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > Kant? Wasn't he 'the pissant who was very rarely stable'? >> >> > > "A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed ..." :-) >> >> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQycQ8DABvc >> >> > Absotively, Posilutely!! >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> ""Minds Eye"" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > > >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
