Hi Craig, "No scientist" - would have been exaggerated hype I'll grant you - since I clearly don't know every scientist in the word - and of course I am being provocative.
But I did qualify the scientist with "thoughtful" and the subject with "beyond". (Yes, I am rhetorically that weasel.) Would it be easier to accept if I re-phrased it ? "The world's more thoughtful scientists already recognise the quantum weirdness that calls into question objective reality independent of dynamic subject interaction. The more inquisitive popular science reader would recognise that too." (ie anyone who doesn't is less thoughtful, and not someone I'm talking about.) Ian On 7/23/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Ian] > > No thougtful scientist "believes" in an objective reality beyond the > > pragmatic conventions and methods of his day job, like we all do, to > > avoid stubbing our toes on the philosopher's stone. > This seems doubtful to me. What is your evidence for it? > Craig > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
