Marsha, Yes, I agree with you there. I don't believe there are any "answers" only different ways of perceiving our realities. Each one of us comes to our own understanding. I would add philosophers to your priests and ministers.
Cheers, Willblake2 On Apr 20, 2009, at 11:59:59 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: Will, You seemed to have missed the fact that there was a question mark at the end of my sentence. But maybe your response was the best you could give because Science doesn't have any answers, just a lot of condescension like religion's priests and ministers. Marsha At 11:15 PM 4/20/2009, you wrote: >Hi Marsha, >Perhaps science is not as foreign as you think it is. When you discover that >tomatoes grow better in one part of the yard than another, that is science. >When you try to figure out why your umbrella doesn't open, that is science. > >Science is creating order and predictability so that either it can then be >ignored, or the principles discovered can be used. Science is a mixture >of curiosity and fear of the unknown, we all have that. There are some >who are obsessed with doing these things all the time, they are >scientists. In >order to keep creating order farther out, it takes a lot of >learning, but that is not >to say that science is different from what you do on a daily basis. > >I am not trying to minimize science or make you into a scientist, that is >just my interpretation of what it is. > >Cheers, >Willblake > >On Apr 20, 2009, at 4:02:55 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >Ian, > >How is one suppose to act on information created by science when it >cannot be experienced and is market-driven? Trust? > > >Marsha > > > >At 06:34 AM 4/20/2009, you wrote: > >Hi Marsha, thanks ... I'd not heard the label used. > >(Kuhn is behind a lot of the Nick Maxwell work I've been looking at lately.) > > > >My reference to bad science is the kind of science that believes its > >access to truth is somehow privelidged because of its so-called > >"objective" methods - the kind that deserved the backlash. A science > >that recognizes its limitations is in that sense "better". > >Regards > >Ian > > > >On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > At 02:17 AM 4/20/2009, you wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Ian: > > >> Marsha (I've not been concentrating for a few weeks) what explicitly > > >> did you mean by the reference "science wars" in the 1990's ? My > > >> starting point (before the turn of the millennium) was that the > > >> "scientific" view had become too dominant in all walks of life - a > > >> thoughtless and all-too-easy knee-jerk instead of quality thinking. > > >> (But here scientific is "bad science" - over-simplified science for > > >> the mass media and social and other pseudo-sciences.) I see the "faith > > >> wars" of recent times as a backlash to this bad science of the last > > >> two or three generations - since Copenhagen. > > > > > > Greetings Ian: > > > > > > Starting in the 1990s sociologists, anthropologists, historians and > > > intellectuals of all stripes started to evaluate the knowledge > and methods > > > of science. Science's objectivity, neutrality, and explanations > were found > > > to be myth-laden. There was, of course, a conservative backlash, with the > > > conflict being labeled the 'Science Wars'. It wasn't just good science > > > versus bad science, it's the age-old crisis of what constitutes truth and > > > knowledge severely damaging Science's privileged tower. Supposedly the > > > challenge started with the book 'The Structure of Scientific > > Revolutions' by > > > Thomas S. Kuhn. > > > > > > > > > Marsha > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Platt Holden <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > [Willblake2] > > >> >> Hi all, > > >> >> > > >> >> Let me first say that I carry the burden of scientific > > >> >> training, Ph.D. and all. That means full indoctrination. > > >> >> > > >> >> I read, below, scientific facts thrown about as though they > > >> >> were truths. The earth is 5 billion years old! Did you measure > > >> >> this, or are you parroting somebody's opinion? Oh, it has > > >> >> been proven. Please explain to me that proof. Is it all based on > > >> >> assumptions? Science is a convention, that seems to provide > > >> >> some predictability to our lives. That predictability comes true > > >> >> simply because the cause and effect are supporting each other, > > >> >> like a closed logical circle, no other reason. 1 + 1= 2. What does > > >> >> that mean? Absolutely nothing more than a convention. Neuronal > > >> >> firings that are shared amongst people. The more people that > > >> >> have similar neuronal firings (or patterns), the more meaningful > > >> >> it seems to be. Why? Because we like company. > > >> >> > > >> >> It is my opinion that science describes that which is considered > > >> >> outside of us; this includes the brain as described by science. > > >> >> Spirituality describes that which is within ourselves. It > is my belief > > >> >> that which is within is much greater than what is outside. (It could > > >> >> also > > >> >> be said that the world we create is within (and I don't mean within > > >> >> the brain)). The "rules" for describing spirituality are very > > >> >> different > > >> >> from the rules of science. There is no cause-effect. If we could > > >> >> transmit > > >> >> feelings directly (no thoughts or words in between) it would be > > >> >> much easier to convey spirituality. Instead we are left with > > >> >> the scientific (logical) tool of language. > > >> >> > > >> >> Science has sacrificed that within for that outside. For every > > >> >> word concerning experience in English, there are forty in > Sanskrit. It > > >> >> is > > >> >> because of this obsession with that which is outside, that we > > >> >> find no real meaning or satisfaction or truth. How could there be? > > >> >> Science has taken much away. There is no balance. > > >> >> > > >> >> It seems that the more detailed we make this outside, the more > > >> >> dominant it becomes, until it is all. What an illusion! > > >> >> > > >> >> The real war is between that which is within, and that > which is outside > > >> >> (without). > > >> >> > > >> >> I think this has something to do with MoQ... > > >> >> > > >> >> Willblake2 > > >> > > > >> > I'm with you Willblake2. The cosmos exhibits an inner will > to be better. > > >> > That's the message of the MoQ. > > >> > > > >> > 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/ > > >> > > > >> 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/ > > > > > > . > > > _____________ > > > > > > Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the > stars.......... > > > . > > > . > > > 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/ > >.. >_____________ > >Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.......... >.. >.. > >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/ . _____________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars......... . . 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/
