> > Platt: > > Why do > > you think "spontaneously arise" is any different than "oops." > > > > What do you think the difference is? > > > > Ron: > > Question is, who's doing the "oops"? it implies a mistake by a > "maker". > > > > "spontaneously arise" is more of a neutral term for "who the heck > knows > > but we are here just the same." > > Platt: > > Thanks. To me "oops" means "Who the heck knows?." How about "got lucky?" > > Ron: > I believe it's a best guess sort of scenario, what makes sense is a > guess > that is supported by evidence and observation. A reason for that guess. > What I sense your argument is about is the absolute authority that > traditional science seems to subliminally exert. That façade of "fact" > > What MoQ suggests is to re-examine the "evidence" in other ways to > arrive > at a possibly more accurate interpretation, it also suggests that the > value > of the interpretation may not be as high quality as originally thought to > be.
I think "best guess" is irrelevant when the answer of "spontaneously arise" is simply a description that explains nothing. It would be better (more honest) if the answer was, "We don't know." As for the MOQ alternative, very well put. I agree. Thanks, Platt 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/
