--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
Someone must have trai- er, taught you well.
;}
Aye. I also have a strong self-preservation
instinct. :-D
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There *could* be a joke in there somewhere about
how illogical and irrational subjects aren't
inherently understandable, but I certainly won't
go searching for it.
-Original Message-
I waited to allow someone else to come up with this one. We have no
scientific means to allow people to tell if they are
dreaming, even though
dreams have been studied for thousands of years. We have
means to see if
other people are dreaming, but we have no
- Original Message -
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: Science and knowledge
Dan Minette wrote:
I think the key to reconciling this with the general description of
physicists
At 07:11 AM 7/23/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:16:20PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Sounds like they would fit Erik's conditions perfectly.
Nope.
Why not?
--Ronn! :)
I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon.
I never dreamed that I would see the
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 09:52:26PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Why not?
Exactly.
--
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Science and knowledge
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:16:20PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Sounds like they would fit Erik's conditions perfectly.
Nope. Keep trying.
--
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 06:08 am, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: Science and knowledge
The purpose of science is not to help us understand reality
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Hmm, what about astronomy? Centuries of looking
at the skies, yet
quasars/pulsars weren't discovered until the 60's
Not a good example. If we had a pulsar right next to
us, and we studied
it for decades, but never
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Hey! What about the astronomy example I gave in
my first post this thread:
And for an even longer timeframe from observance
to 'scientific
revision,' look at the change from an
Earth-centered to a sun-centered system!
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I think of 'religious experiences' etc. as a broad
feild,
sigh Should be *field* of course; I'm sure someone
could come up with a good definition for 'feild' if
they wanted to... :P
Did anyone else think of 'the Dark Side of the Force'
given
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Science and knowledge
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Hey! What about
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Science and knowledge
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I think of 'religious experiences
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: Science and knowledge
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 06:08 am, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
The problem is that you are comparing a
situation where we have a lot
of measurements and interaction with the element
of interest and have
found NOTHING to
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Science and knowledge
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED
- Original Message -
From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: Science and knowledge
LOL! I'm old enough to remember that I owned Spiderman, Superman, Star
Wars
and ET Underoos when I was little. :-) As for what
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Science and knowledge
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:46:54 -0500
- Original Message -
From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
Dan Minette wrote:
I think the key to reconciling this with the general description of
physicists as mostly realists is the shut up and calculate statement of
Feynman. It is an acknowledgement that there is no good realistic
explanation for how QM works. It deliberately tables the question;
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:08:43AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
It was the alternate thinkers who insisted that science must describe
reality.
Is Feynman an alternate thinker? He said that the test of all
knowledge is experiment. That sounds to me like he thinks scientific
knowledge should be
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 5:41 AM
Subject: Re: Science and knowledge
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:08:43AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
It was the alternate thinkers who insisted
At 02:40 PM 7/21/03 -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Let me give an example of 'phenomena that had been
investigated for
centuries' to no avail, until after the proper
equipment was invented
and the phenomenon was explained
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Let me give an example of 'phenomena that had been
investigated for
centuries' to no avail, until after the proper
equipment was invented
and the phenomenon was explained scientifically:
blood circulation.
Bad example.
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Let me give an example of 'phenomena that had
been
investigated for
centuries' to no avail, until after the proper
equipment was invented
and the phenomenon was explained
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 02:40:07PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
Hmm, what about astronomy? Centuries of looking at the skies, yet
quasars/pulsars weren't discovered until the 60's
Not a good example. If we had a pulsar right next to us, and we studied
it for decades, but never noticed that
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 03:01:20PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
Hey! What about the astronomy example I gave in my first post this
thread:
And for an even longer timeframe from observance to 'scientific
revision,' look at the change from an Earth-centered to a sun-centered
system! :)
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: Science and knowledge
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 03:01:20PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
Hey! What about the astronomy example I gave
The purpose of science is not to help us understand reality; it is not
about the truth. Indeed, one of my favorite statements about science is
the most important development in the history of science is when it was
decided that it wasn't about the truth.
I would argue that most scientists
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: Science and knowledge
The purpose of science is not to help us understand reality; it is not
about the truth. Indeed, one of my favorite
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
... Debbi claims that there may be some as yet
unmeasurable by
science connection between her numinous experiences
and the rest of
the universe. Very similar to some claims of
astrology. I would not
have made the comparison if there were no
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 08:12:30PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
Let me give an example of 'phenomena that had been investigated for
centuries' to no avail, until after the proper equipment was invented
and the phenomenon was explained scientifically: blood circulation.
Bad example. While the
I think that enough has been bandied about the relationship between
science and knowledge that it would be worthwhile to discuss this topic
directly. I'll put forth, once again, viewpoints that I hold.
The purpose of science is to model and predict phenomenon. It also allows
us to manipulate
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:45:38PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
Let me give an example of this by answering a question that Erik asked
Debby. What's the difference between believing in astrology and
believing in inner experiences. When I posed the question, and my
answer to a non-theist
34 matches
Mail list logo
