On Nov 17, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
"For example, Dr. Irvin S. Y. Chen, director of the AIDS Institute
at U.C.L.A. , is working on using RNA "hairpin scissors" to cut
out the bits of genetic material in blood stem cells that code for
the receptors. . . .
This strikes me as a very promising approach to a cure.
Right. Yes. The Chen approach may be promising, and based on this
other result with bone marrow transplant, we now have good reason
to think it will work. (There was reason to thinks so before, but
this bolsters it.) What I meant was that the procedures used with
the particular patient cannot be duplicated on a large scale. The
lessons learned from this case may contribute to a more practical
cure.
A marrow transplant cure, especially using gene therapy on the
patient's own cells to obtain the new marrow, is well within the
reach of US medical capabilities, both technically and financially.
This kind of cure, gene therapy, is already being used for cancer, at
least experimentally. It may or may not be affordable on a world
wide basis, and certainly not at this moment of financial crisis. I
agree that a vaccine or other cheaper approach is clearly much
needed. Still, I think it has been undeniable that marrow transplant
can provide a cure for AIDS since we knew that some people have
immune systems that are immune to AIDS. Gene therapy simply provides
a safer cheaper way to accomplish the transplant, and it took a long
time to identify the gene.
Along the same lines, I do not think that bulk Pd-D electrochemical
cold fusion will ever become a practical source of energy. It takes
too long to turn on, it uses too much rare Pd, it is inherently
difficult to control, and so on. However, it may teach us something
about the reaction that can be applied to other materials, or that
points to a theory. For that reason, I think we should continue
work on this approach.
It may be that high temperature operation combined with a Mo-Fe nano-
mix might be involved, due to the high tunneling rate of hydrogen in
these metals.
The above argument is a marvelous demonstration that logic applied
to false premises can result in false conclusions. Hume's argument
assumes the laws of nature apply to everything in nature. This is
an unproven assumption.
Well, not perfectly proven, but Hume (and I) are of the opinion
Yes, your empiricism is a mater of faith, a premise, not a proved or
provable assertion.
that nothing can be proven beyond doubt, and all proof is based on
repetitive observations with no solid observations to the contrary.
One of a kind events may be such that they have no observations to
the contrary or which are contrary to all other related events. This
is practically a definition of a "one of a kind event".
We are empiricists. Thus, for example, the fact that special
relativity predicts time dilation and that nothing can go at the
speed of light does not prove those assertions as much as the fact
that people have measured time dilation; and they have never
observed any physical object reach the speed of light, or any
variation in the speed of light, although they have looked carefully.
Here you yet again show your extreme bias. You can not accept that
any event can violate the laws by which the universe typically
operates, especially an event which represents an intelligent
intervention.
The second law of thermodynamics is still entirely empirical as far
as I know, but I believe it as much as I believe laws that are
backed by gobs of theory.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems. Nothing
in the universe is a fully closed system, so there is necessarily the
possibility of exceptions. Closed systems are imaginary things.
I am well aware of the fact that the MM experiments were not fully
convincing, and some smart people still think there may be
variations in the speed of light from ether, but from an empiricist
point of view, it is true for now, true as anything, and true
enough to act upon -- and there is no better or more solid
definition of truth.
Such a limited view of things! It is as limited as the notion that
man will never fly.
The laws of nature are determined by science, and the domain of
science is only those things in nature which are repeatable.
That is incorrect. Science deals with countless non-repeatable,
uncontrollable, one-off phonomena, such as the emergence of life on
earth, the emergence of individual species (which are never
duplicated) the creation and death of the universe (cosmology),
super-nova, and of course experiments that are uncontrolled and
difficult to repeat such as cold fusion and semiconductors in the
1930s
Here again you show your inability to conceive that one of a kind
events can operate outside the laws of physics. You *assume* all
such events operate under these laws. Most might but you apparently
refuse to believe that some events, no matter how well measured and
observed, might be fully anomalous, operate totally outside physical
laws. I think scientists deal with one of a kind things things more
than science. Scientists confabulate reasons that are within their
conceptual frameworks for anomalous events which can not be
repeated. As time goes by we see how silly some of the conceptual
frameworks of science are. Often such descriptions of one of a kind
events are nothing more than hypotheses which can never be proven
empirically or otherwise.
Hume presupposes the set of things in nature which are not
repeatable is null. He presupposes his conclusion.
Not repeatable. He was talking about events that have not been
reliably observed by objective means,
Here again you *assume* events which are observed by extremely
comprehensive and precise means can not occasionally fall outside the
laws of science. This is tantamount to the assumption that miracles
can not exist. It is not a giant feat of logic to reach the
conclusion that miracles do not exist from this premise. A = A.
such as being recorded by instruments. All miracles have been
observed and reported by people, who are notoriously unreliable
judges of what is occurring in nature. (Doctors included, by the
way.) A miracle would be an event recorded by instruments, cameras
and the like that clearly violates the laws of nature to an extreme
extent, such as -- for example -- a putrefying corpse coming back
to life (Lazarus). Such a thing has never happened since the
beginning of the universe, and never will happen.
Here again you fail to distinguish which parts of your religion of
science is premise and which is logical necessity.
Hume and I are as certain of that as we are of anything.
Ye of much faith!
The fact that many other people believe it can happen has no
bearing on the subject and no effect on our opinions, any more than
the fact that many people refuse to believe in cold fusion affects
my views on that subject.
- Jed
Your belief in your faith of science of course has no relevance to
those who have experienced miracles. Your belief that laws of
science apply to all events in the universe without exception, that
yours is the one true religion, is as closed minded as any other form
of fundamentalism. You and Hume alike have fallen into the trap of
failing to distinguish between premise and logic. At least Hume
appears to recognize his argument is a tautology, but conveniently
dances around the notion the premise involved is possibly wrong. You
assume your faith is the one and only true faith. You assume no one
of a kind event can be anomalous, that all events fall within the
domain of your religion, and fail to distinguish what is science from
what is personal opinion applied to one of a kind events, the
confabulated opinion of scientists who are often so closed minded
they can not accept events exist outside their understanding, and yet
who often disagree about the details of such events.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
