Yes, Bill, 1. is now, 2. was then.
--ED
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
ED,
The first scenario coheres NOW to our worldview NOW. The second
scenario coheres best THEN.
Bill!
Bill,
The difference is that the first scenario coheres with our overall
collection of beliefs
Bill said: "I just don't see any difference."
Bill,
The confidence or trust in experts, both then and now, emanates from a
belief in the ambient wordview, then or now.
The ambient worldview has changed, and many 'facts' then have turned out
not to be empirical facts today, but merely philosop
Yes, Bill, 1. is now, 2. is then.
--ED
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
ED,
The first scenario coheres NOW to our worldview NOW. The second
scenario coheres best THEN.
Bill!
Bill,
The difference is that the first scenario coheres with our overall
collection of beliefs (ou
@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike
Bill!,
But there's a world of difference between these 2 examples, and which also
highlights the difference between beliefs based on superstition and scientific
'beliefs'. Namely, that one can be empirically tes
ED,
The first scenario coheres NOW to our worldview NOW. The second scenario
coheres best THEN.
.Bill!
From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of ED
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:59 AM
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Zen] Non-zen
Bill,
The difference is that the first scenario coheres with our overall
collection of beliefs (our worldview), whereas the second scenario does
not.
--ED
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> What is the difference between these two scenarios?
>
> 1. TODAY: A man is accus
There may not be a difference for the jurors but there is a difference for the
group as a whole, since DNA analysis is more accurate than entrail reading.
Modern technological societies require much more trust than less complex
societies. Any one could buy some DNA sequencer and build some supe
ke brown
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 8:21 PM
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike
Bill!,
But there's a world of difference between these 2 examples, and which also
highlights the difference between beliefs based on superstition and scientific
'beli
orum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of mike brown
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:27 PM
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike
>
> Bill!,
>
> At a functional level, the majority of people will
.org"
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 29 October, 2010 19:18:49
Subject: RE: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike
Mike,
I would choose a western surgeon over a shaman. I trust DNA evidence more than
cat entrails. But that's not the point. If I had lived 300 years ago I would
have
procedure, who would you choose to treat your
appendicitis - a shaman or a western surgeon?
Mike
From: "billsm...@hhs1963.org"
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 29 October, 2010 17:08:50
Subject: RE: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike
hoose to treat your
appendicitis - a shaman or a western surgeon?
Mike
From: "billsm...@hhs1963.org"
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 29 October, 2010 17:08:50
Subject: RE: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike
Mike,
The point I was try
Of
mike brown
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:19 PM
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike
Bill,
The scenarios you present are so radically different that it makes me think I'm
missing some finer, subtler point - but for the life of me I can't f
Bill and Mike:
I'm listening both with lots of interest. Keep going!
Mayka
--- On Thu, 28/10/10, mike brown wrote:
From: mike brown
Subject: Re: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, 28 October, 2010, 12:19
Bill,
The scenario
The difference between the two methods *today* is:
1. *can* be verified or disproved by other DNA experts.
2. can neither be verified nor can it be disproven by other expert
priests.
-
1. may not be compared with some unknown *hypothetical* method of the
future.
--ED
--- In Ze
can be objectively
judged/trusted. Hope that answers your question somewhat (considering I never
got past 'sums' in high school science classes).
Mike
From: "billsm...@hhs1963.org"
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 26 October, 2010 19:4
[mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
mike brown
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 10:29 PM
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike
Bill!,
Forensic evidence is a specialised area for criminal lawyers so I'll tread
carefully on this subject. Fi
Bill!,
Forensic evidence is a specialised area for criminal lawyers so I'll tread
carefully on this subject. Firstly, each case turns on its own facts so you'd
have to go through each situation (regarding dna) case by case. Secondly, I
don't think it's correct to say that any ruling is automati
18 matches
Mail list logo
