--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not anti-science - - I am suggesting that much of the
intellectual findings of science don't impact me - - - for example, I
know the earth is round, but for 99.9+% of my daily life
activities, it makes no
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice contribution! I studied the philosophy of science a bit. In my
personal life I am trying to find a balance in how I relate to
beliefs. It seems to be a dance between trying to be rigorous in my
thinking
We can compare notes then. I once did surgery on dogs.
- Original Message
From: ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 7:56:32 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can compare notes then. I once did surgery on dogs.
I sure hope your dogs lived, my mice sure didn't. Gave their lives
to science.
From: ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 7:56:32 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Larry inmadison@ . wrote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry inmadison@ wrote:
I am not anti-science - - I am suggesting that much of the
intellectual findings of science don't impact me - - - for
example, I
know the earth
wasn't great
enough. I never got used to that first incision, but after that, it was pretty
academic.
- Original Message
From: ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 9:07:02 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs
Ruth wrote:
May I ask, what is the posting format here?
It's best, Ruth, to be a top-poster and to include
the line you're responding to. That way, respondents
don't have to scroll all the way to the bottom of
the messages just to read a silly, one-liner sentence.
It best also, not to change
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ruth wrote:
May I ask, what is the posting format here?
Ruth, Willytex (Richard J. Williams) is this forum's
very own troll. Don't pay any mind to what he says in
his reply to you; he's just making it up.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And welcome! Glad you joined us.
Thank you for the welcome. And here I started a whole new thread
because of the prior post on thread rules! I kind of figured out what
you are saying, but one never knows until they
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How many people in this forum Pseudo-science.??
And how many are Anti-science.??
How do you define both.??
I recently moved to town and found this forum. I signed up mostly to
You have hit the nail right on the head.
Pseudo-science is basic disbelief in the scientific method.
ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:30:38 -
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Pseudo-Science vs Anti-Science
I recently moved
Nice contribution! I studied the philosophy of science a bit. In my
personal life I am trying to find a balance in how I relate to
beliefs. It seems to be a dance between trying to be rigorous in my
thinking and still being open to what is not known. I am still
finding that balance. I don't
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice contribution! I studied the philosophy of science a bit. In my
personal life I am trying to find a balance in how I relate to
beliefs. It seems to be a dance between trying to be rigorous in my
thinking and
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote:
How many people in this forum Pseudo-science.??
And how many are Anti-science.??
How do you define
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The 21st century will be about research published in respected peer-
reviewed scientific journals.
OffWorld
There is a danger in equating peer review with certainty. Mistakes
and innapropriate motivations can
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
Nice contribution! I studied the philosophy of science a bit.
In my
personal life I am trying to find a balance in how I relate
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@
wrote:
The 21st century will be about research published in respected
peer-
reviewed scientific journals.
OffWorld
There is a danger in
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@
wrote:
The 21st century will be about research published in respected peer-
reviewed scientific journals.
OffWorld
There is a danger in
I am not anti-science - - I am suggesting that much of the
intellectual findings of science don't impact me - - - for example, I
know the earth is round, but for 99.9+% of my daily life
activities, it makes no difference whether the world is flat or round.
The issue of the flatness or
--right...most of what people do, and why; is based on the
subconscious: concealed impulses deeply hidden within the psyche that
emerge spontaneously given the stimulating input. I could read out
reams of peer reviewed articles to my coworkers about any subject but
the response would be the
21 matches
Mail list logo
