Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: tricer@news.HiWAAY.net (Richard Trice)
Date: 21 Nov 1996 13:42:27 GMT
Saved Soul (saved@heaven.edu) wrote:
: In article ksjj@fast.net (ksjj) writes:
: >From: ksjj@fast.net (ksjj)
: >Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
: >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 22:44:56 -0400
: >Would somebody please explain to me how a dead puddle of GUE evolved into
: >living organisms?
Well, Lets see. Why dont you take a puddle of GUE and put it in a
sterile container. Now Apply ENERGY via the Sun or Electricity (or both)
and sit around for about 30 years. Now check the mix, and see if it is
the same, or see if it is more complex than before. Now sit around for
another 2 billion (give or take a couple a billion) years and see if life
crops up. Now I have a question for you, if there was life in the Jar of
GUE after that length of time, would you be GOD?
: karl,
: That is the same question I have been trying to get an answer to! They will
: just say "It happened, we don't know how, it just did, with TIME anything can
: happen!"
Now, lets see, your answer is so much better. Some Thing that we cant
see, and doesn't interact with us, He made it just appear about 5 thousand
years ago, all in a 'devilish' ploy to trick us into thinking it was many
billions of years before that. Sounds like an X-files episode.....
I will agree that 'God' created the Universe, but not your 'God'. And not
your way.
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: PatParson
Date: 22 Nov 1996 04:13:19 GMT
ksjj@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>In article <572heb$e5e@dscomsa.desy.de>, vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick
>van Esch) wrote:
>
>> ksjj (ksjj@fast.net) wrote:
>> : The Bible says dust. Not evolution.
>>
>> So ?
>> I say evolution from dust.... :-)
>>
>Ok, pat, use the bible to back yourself up.
>
>--
>see ya,/////
>karl
>*********************************************
> The Bible says dust. Not evolution.
Evolution of course, is documented by facts, not by religious
beliefs. However, the Bible appears to be correct in the idea,
poetically expressed, that we evolved from the dust. Most t
theories of the origin of life propose that we came from the
materials of the earth.
However, as you have come to learn, such things have nothing
to do with theories of evolution, which merely observe how
existing life evolves. It is immaterial to any of them how
life originated.
Your continual confusion between religion and science is at the
heart of your failure to understand even the rudiments of science
or Christianity.
Pat Parson
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: PatParson
Date: 22 Nov 1996 04:13:37 GMT
ksjj@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>In article <572heb$e5e@dscomsa.desy.de>, vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick
>van Esch) wrote:
>
>> ksjj (ksjj@fast.net) wrote:
>> : The Bible says dust. Not evolution.
>>
>> So ?
>> I say evolution from dust.... :-)
>>
>Ok, pat, use the bible to back yourself up.
>
>--
>see ya,/////
>karl
>*********************************************
> The Bible says dust. Not evolution.
Evolution of course, is documented by facts, not by religious
beliefs. However, the Bible appears to be correct in the idea,
poetically expressed, that we evolved from the dust. Most t
theories of the origin of life propose that we came from the
materials of the earth.
However, as you have come to learn, such things have nothing
to do with theories of evolution, which merely observe how
existing life evolves. It is immaterial to any of them how
life originated.
Your continual confusion between religion and science is at the
heart of your failure to understand even the rudiments of science
or Christianity.
Pat Parson
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: PatParson
Date: 22 Nov 1996 04:13:36 GMT
ksjj@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>In article <572heb$e5e@dscomsa.desy.de>, vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick
>van Esch) wrote:
>
>> ksjj (ksjj@fast.net) wrote:
>> : The Bible says dust. Not evolution.
>>
>> So ?
>> I say evolution from dust.... :-)
>>
>Ok, pat, use the bible to back yourself up.
>
>--
>see ya,/////
>karl
>*********************************************
> The Bible says dust. Not evolution.
Evolution of course, is documented by facts, not by religious
beliefs. However, the Bible appears to be correct in the idea,
poetically expressed, that we evolved from the dust. Most t
theories of the origin of life propose that we came from the
materials of the earth.
However, as you have come to learn, such things have nothing
to do with theories of evolution, which merely observe how
existing life evolves. It is immaterial to any of them how
life originated.
Your continual confusion between religion and science is at the
heart of your failure to understand even the rudiments of science
or Christianity.
Pat Parson
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 04:37:29 GMT
In article ,
moggin wrote:
>virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy):
>[...]
>
>>>>If you
>>>>still *refuse* to get it, here's some advice. Remove sci.physics from
>>>>the header and say whatever the explicative your brand of religions and
>>>>philosophies want to hear. I doubt if many *actual* physicists would be
>>>>bothered by what you say about Science then. It's just the way
>>>>partitioning of the newsgroups works. We'll *all* deal with it.
>
>moggin:
>
>>> While here it's unclear what you're saying, if anything.
>
>Mahipal:
>
>>What I stated is extremely clear and nearly singular in meaning. My
>>intentions are even there in plain black&white; ASCII. Perhaps I should
>>point out that partitioning by names of newsgroups is a way of separating
>>topics and views of people who follow such topics. Nah --- ignore this
>>sentence. Keep only the first two of this paragraph.
>
> What you said is hard to make out -- remember, you're not making
>any claims to coherence. I'll take a guess, though. "Sci.physics: love it
>or leave it." Is that your point? But if you don't want to hear from me,
>why did you begin this conversation? Not that I mind, one way or the
>other -- it just doesn't seem to make much sense. In any case, I doubt
>that many "*actual* physicists" would be bothered by what I've been
>saying.
Logically, if I wasn't coherent then you wouldn't be talking with me.
So, let's get over mutually insulting eachother because that certainly
isn't going to lead to the place I want go --- Progress. And being as
proficient as you are with language, you should've realized that I
specifically wrote "I never claimed to be coherent". A reasonable Being
wouldn't have to go around _claiming_. But it's nice you clung to that
otherwise forgetable trivia of Reality. You are certainly too quick in
trying to intimidate your debators with unfounded personal attacks. Do
you really think that's helping your case --- assuming you have
a point to offer?
If I had to edit your guess I'd say "Sci.physics: love it!" and I'll try
address why. Since man's recorded history, men have noticed patterns in
physical phenomena. You know why Galileo dropped those balls so many
times? Well, besides not having the Internet to distract him, I'll bet
he was hoping against hope to just see *once* if the ball wouldn't do
the same thing. I can hear him praying in Italian before dropping the
balls "Please O please do something different!". Finally Galileo
realized that praying wasn't changing the outcome of what the balls were
motivated to do. So he made the best of it rather than deny the
experimental observational fact. We praise Galileo accordingly. As such,
by extrapolation, other men have realized that it's better to love
physics than to leave it. For men can't actually "leave" physics. There
is no physics-free-place to go. And don't feel imprisoned --- for that
would be to miss the fascination entirely.
[...]
>moggin:
>
>>> Oh, I see -- you're another member of the scientific illiterati.
>
>Mahipal:
>
>>Yes. Indeed. You've wounded me Sir. But, pray tell, how did you conclude I
>>was a member of the scientific illiterati cult without having access to my
>>membership card? [...]
Now that's not fair editing on your part. You leave in calling me
"scientific illiterati" and commit to the epsilons me calling you
"Unscientific LiTTerati". You're not biased in any way, are you?
> It was simple -- I noticed that you asked a question ("The terms
>"pragmatic" "utilitarian" escape your comprehension?") which
>my recent posts already answered in the negative. In other words,
>I was commenting on your reading skills -- not your education.
My apologies for having missed your recognition of these useful
concepts. All I can say is that you write too much and do yourself
damage because readers don't have patience to seek out your points all
the while personalities are clashing. But if you had said my education
sucked I merely would've agreed and said that's because I studied in
America. ;-)
[trim]
>Mahipal:
>
>>You need to justify your claim that my request is "unreasonable". You or
>>no one else holds any supreme position of declaring what are/not (in)valid
>>pronouncements. Justify your thoughts. If a scientist said "philosophy
>>is shit", then you too would want a rational debate before accepting the
>>scientist's proclaimation. Regardless of how much you personally agreed.
>
> You're right, I would, but I didn't get up and make a claim -- I just
>gave you my answer to the question you asked. That doesn't obligate me
>to anything. However, out of a spirit of good-fellowship, I'll add a bit
>to what I said. What I'm thinking, basically, is that while scientists
>as a group are undoubtedly better than philosophers and theologians at
>doing science, there's no reason to believe that they're well equipped
>to _think_ about it. Most scientists, I'd say, are more concerned with
>practicing science than reflecting on it -- and more talented at it, as
>well.
Thank you and I too shall sustain the spirit of good-fellowship. Name
calling can only be entertainment for so long. It gets nowhere though.
From my personal experience, most scientists are concerned with having a
decent paying job within Science than worrying about reflecting on it.
Though this may seem funny to you, it's far far from funny when you have
no money.
Philosophers and theologians may be better equipped, IYO, about thinking
about science. Where scientists get bothered is when science is
misrepresented, otherwise devalued, or told by outsiders that science
decisions are trivial (Case in point --- Silke's comment regarding the
estimation of airplane fuel requirements). What's utterly ironic inspite
of all this, everybody from lawyers to palmists will unquestionably and
unerringly claim that their works are somehow "scientifically sound".
It's enough to make you laugh --- forever. I mean I love to point out
hypocrits as much as the next guy, but groups like the Christian
Scientists, et. al. take the cake. Though it's unbelivably funny, all
these people take themselves way too seriously and want to get --- as it
were --- equal billing in respect, politics, and classrooms.
However, unquestionably, there are pure philosophers and theologians who
are not motivated by self-serving misguided (political) reasons. But I
doubt that they are the outspoken vocal ones.
[...]
>Mahipal:
>
>>You are going to have to do better than that. How many philosophies are
>>falsifiable and testible? Do help me out. If there is no objective
>>Reality out *there* --- and I've been misled by the scientific camp ---
>>then I want the knowledge. I'll exact revenge on those science bastards
>>then! C'mon --- save me/us.
>
> The science camp is having trouble making up its mind. Most of the
>science campers I see on the net can't run away fast enough from the
>idea that science reports on "Reality." I'm not sure they don't believe
>it -- they just don't want to be stuck trying to defend the damn thing.
>On the other hand, there are people like Sokal, who leap to its defense.
>I'm not the one you should be asking for a science report, anyhow --
>aren't you one of them scientists? Physician, ask thyself.
I well understand the pitfalls of Self-Deception. Trust me, that's why I
leave the door open. That's why I read these threads. Real time people
with real time thoughts. I learned from everybody though I've come to
hate a few for their style and idiocy. But for the most part, I'm glad I
chose science. I might have exceled at deconstructionism and _that_ scares
me! I really did in truth enjoy reading Zelany. Fact is, you're
arguments brought his and a few other's to my attention. So not all bad
goes unrewarded. But I'm a certified optimist. It'll get me one day. ;-)
Let me be the next to inform you, there *IS* an objective "Reality" and we
humans are an intricate part of it. If one's philosphy doesn't allow for
the determination or merely the acceptence of such physical reality,
then the philospher really isn't doing a very good job. There are very
simple facts of human's observations that confirm the existence of an
objective reality. Whether it exists for any "purpose" or not is a
secondary issue --- from the scientist's perspective. From *THIS*
scientist's perspective. Why is the issue secondary? Easy, because the
first issue is to manage to survive in this proovably hostile
environment! Having succeeded at surviving, then the philosophers and
theologians and palmists can all live under the shelters science helps
make and LITERALLY bash on science to their heart's content. If that is
what they desire. Scientists will defend themselves. But why battle?
I like Sokal. Seems like a well-meaningful individual from what I have
read of him. If that too is a *hoax*, then infinite kudos to him. :-)
The point about true Science is that since it is independent of social
prejudice, it is immune from both criticism and praise. However,
scientists are humans and humans depend on Society for mutual
coexistence. You can bash the scientists --- and they will not like it
of course --- but the Science remains the same. Kepler is the classic
case in point. He lead a miserable life personally. Financially broke.
Death and desease. Witch hunts and what not. Despite all this madness in
the society around him, he found stability in the patterns of the
"wanderers" around his Earth. Though we praise him now, it doesn't
change one iota the misery that was his personal life. We modern
scientists don't want to live miserable lives and social movements that
are antiscience will get us to stand up and REASON.
[trim]
>>Without all these fancy evasions and more... Tell me this
>>If "Newton is wrong" then how would moggin make the Universe "right"?
>
> Righting the universe is beyond my ability.
If you resolve to believe this, then so shall you achieve.
Why set yourself up for the failure? Perhaps you're being rational and
just comprimising with the Nature/God-Given limitations of your ability?
Anyway, it does not matter as far as either Nature or God is concerned.
See, scientists can be inspirational. The point you and Society at large
are raising is that scientists have failed at communicating about their
work --- which influences every life directly or indirectly. That's what
I gather and it's only valid in the domain of one man's opinion.
What you are saying is that Science needs to be addressed from religious
and/or mystical, even literary, perspectives. I sincerely doubt you've
encountered any scientist that would restict your privilege to do so.
It's only when you persist bitching (for lack of a better word in our
Era) that "Newton is wrong" and by extrapolation all Science must be
wrong because there exists no such thing as numerical (Platonic)
perfection that Physicists feel the need to defend Science's ideas. And
when Science&Scientists; are saying that the Laws of Science are
ultimatley independent of the beliefs of the discovers, you all need to
accept this by "understanding" it. It ain't hard Barbi! Trust me. Please
don't turn this comment into something sexual. I know what rigid is. ;-)
moggin, your particular point appears to be that a specific religious
mystical mindset inspired Newton to succeed despite being Universally
wrong in the light of later observations. Problem with this is that it
is not true that a specific religious mindset guided him --- no matter
how religious he personally may have been. Darwin too was a religious
being but the evidence was more overwhelming than scribblings of ancient
texts! And since the final product these individuals discovered is
independent of the personal Beings these men were, it's reasonably true
that their mystical beliefs are irrelevant to Science.
In sum, Reality shapes our perceptions.
All our perceptions combined
couldn't make the Sun geometrically square
No matter how hard we prayed
Or how throughly we brainwashed ourselves.
Somethings just ARE.
The Laws of Physics are a result of seeking out these objectivities.
And the search continues because we don't have any final answers==truths.
How do I convey that scientists would not discover anything if there was
nothing to find? Preexistence is a prerequisite. If I have now entered
metaphysical territory, don't worry for me, I ain't lost.
Mahipal |meforce> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3178/
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: saved@heaven.edu (Saved Soul)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 05:36:23 GMT
ksjj@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>In article <571428$ppj@news.islandnet.com>, scowling@islandnet.com (Jim
>Cowling) wrote:
>> In article , saved@heaven.edu (Saved
>Soul) wrote:
>> >
>> >That is the same question I have been trying to get an answer to! They will
>> >just say "It happened, we don't know how, it just did, with TIME
>anything can
>> >happen!"
>>
>> You've been given the answer: WE DON'T KNOW YET!
>>
>Yet you believe it and except it as fact. Your whole theory is built on sand.
>> -------
>> Jim Cowling, moderator, rec.arts.comics.info
>> Editor, IN CHARACTER, An Electronic Journal about Games
>> http://www.islandnet.com/~scowling/inc.htm
>> -------
>--
>see ya,
>karl
>*********************************************
> The Bible says dust. Not evolution.
Yup Karl, and they mock us for accepting OUR beliefs on faith, faith
in God, which makes more sense.
Subject: Re: My "reverse testamony" (was Creation vrs Evolution)
From: Capella
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 23:53:08 -0600
Capella wrote:
>
> > Judson McClendon wrote:
> > >If I were color sighted and you were color blind, what could I say or
> > >do to allow you (or possibly convince you, if you were not inclined) of
> > >what I could see that you could not? Before I received Jesus I could
> > >not understand the Bible any more than you aparently do. I tried to
> > >read it, but it just didn't make sense, and I didn't enjoy it. Reading
> > >the Bible now is a quite different experience. When a person receives
> > >Christ, they become a 'new person', for they are given a new spirit, and
> > >the Holy Spirit comes to dwell within them. No doubt this sounds
> > >mystical to you, and maybe even hokey.
>
> This is respectfully submitted, this is not to try to make anyone look bad or
> sway anyone, it's just what I would call a "reverse testimony".
>
> I was a saved, baptized, spirit filled christian for 7 years at one time in
> my life. I studied the bible vigorously, followed the Lord, and even thought
> I was being called to be a preacher at one point.
>
> But by reading and through intellectual discoveries I came out of it
> (No grudges or bad feelings, I still stay in touch with some people).
>
> I know exactly what you are talking about. I considered myself at one point
> very "strong in the Lord". It is not mystical to me.
>
> Emotion is the reason I got involved with christianity, emotion can
> sometimes block reality out. There are many psychological emotional
> advantages to believing that I realized when I came out of it. Strong
> father figure, forgiveness, brother and sisterly love, security, sense
> of purpose, feeling the holy spirit in you (psychological phenomenon).
> These are very hard to give up. I just couldn't keep ignoring bugging
> realities.
>
> Capella
> Atheist and proud of science (I'm ok, your ok)
> Dallas, Texas
--
Capella
Dallas, Texas
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: trx140@xmission.xmission.com (theurgy)
Date: 21 Nov 1996 22:53:31 -0700
weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>Michael, it's not science itself that makes these things good; science
>evolved the way it did because the evaluations were in place.
>This is really very simple, and I had no idea I was saying something
>remotely controversial.
Not controversial, merely trite. "Values" in your sense are thin stuff,
arrived at via metaphysical invocations. Whether you get 'em from intense
introspection, or from blister-packs at the checkout stand, they seem
ubiquitous, unavoidable, and largely built-in. What they mean, and whether
they are anything other than abstracted/idealized urges and intestinal
discomforts is another question. Insofar as anything can be said to be
source of *examined* values, science is.
Felicitations,
M.
Subject: Re: Universal Coordinate System
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 05:52:09 GMT
In <570ld6$q4n@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen
Meisner) writes:
>
>In Ian Robert Walker
> writes:
>>
>>In article <56ttv3$2ov@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, Allen Meisner
>> writes
>>>In <56tgd3$a8o@starman.rsn.hp.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A.
>>>Schumacher) writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>straight up? If you do that means the light is moving with you and
>>>has
>>>>>a component of velocity in the direction you are traveling. If you
>>>are
>>>>>moving at 10 meters per second and the light is not deflected,
then
>>>the
>>>>>speed of the light- the vector sum of the velocities
>-sqrt(c^2+10^2)-
>>>>>exceeds c. If you are traveling in a train at 20 meters per second
>>>and
>>>>>shine a light straight up, and naively consider that the
appearance
>>>of
>>>>>the light going straight up is the truth, then you have
implicitly
>>>>>confirmed that the velocity of the light is sqrt(c^2+20^2), in
>>>>>contradiction of experimental evidence and physical law.
>>>>
>>>>No, you have instead confirmed that you don't know how to
>>>>add velocities correctly under relativity. Next!
>>>>
>>>
>>> You, however, don't realize the implications of what you say. If
>>>you say the light goes straight up then you have to assume a
>resultant
>>>velocity which must be determined by a convoluted formula, time
>>>dilation, relativistic mass increase, and length contraction. On the
>>>other hand if you assume that the light goes diagonally back, then
>you
>>>don't have to assume anything; the speed of light stays constant
>>>without mathematical contortions, there is no time dilation, no
>>>relativistic mass increase and no length contraction. In addition
>>>absolute velocity can be determined by the magnitude of the
>deflection
>>>and absolute rest by no deflection. Which version does Occam's razor
>>>choose?
>>
>>
>>If it went diagonally back then experiments to test for this would
>have
>>shown it, they have failed to show such. Doesn't Occam's razor
require
>
>>that you take account of ALL observations and then look for the
>simplest
>>explanation?
>>--
>>Ian G8ILZ
>>I have an IQ of 6 million, | How will it end? | Mostly
>>or was it 6? | In fire. | harmless
>
> Please, could you give a reference? The instruments would have to
>be extremely sensitive, unless the detecting equipment were of very
>large dimensions.
>
>Edward Meisner
Here is a thought experiment that will decide the matter. You are
traveling in a spaceship at 1000 meters per second. In the nose of the
spaceship is a laser that operates in a pulse mode. The laser is
pointed in the direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of
the spaceship. At time t=0 the laser begins to emit pulses of light.
One hour later the ship has traveled 72,000,000 meters. Will the first
pulse of light still be aligned with the nose of the spaceship at this
time. To claim so would be, and is, preposterous.
Edward Meisner
Subject: Re: The Physics of Absolute Motion
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 06:16:22 GMT
In <573bb9$1uf@hil-news-svc-4.compuserve.com> 745532603@compuserve.com
(Michael Ramsey) writes:
>
>In article <56vicj$3v3@starman.rsn.hp.com>, schumach@convex.com
says...
>>
>>Is this the same as Keith Stein's "absolute motion"? How
>>about Edward/Allen Meisner's "absolute motion"
>
>In John S. Bell's "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics",
>'Bertlmann's socks and the nature of reality', pp. 154-3,
>
> Thirdly, it may be that we have to admit that causal influences
> do go faster than light. The role of Lorentz invariance in the
> completed theory would then be very problematic. An 'aether' would
> be the cheapest solution. But the unobservability of this aether
> would be disturbing.
>
>An aether would represent an absolute frame of reference.
>
>----
>
>When I hear "absolute motion" I can't help but think of Sir Issac
>Newton's experiment with a spinning bucket of water. You can tell
>that a bucket of water is spinning because its top is concave. What
>is the bucket spinning relative to? Mach's principle is that it is
>spinning relative to the "fixed stars" (well, at least relative to the
>the average density distribution of matter in the universe). For the
>feedback from the average density distribution of matter in the
universe
>to work, the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory is as good a starting
point
>as any.
>
>--Best regards,
>--Mike
>
In my opinion spacetime is the aether and the aether is made
visible by light. There is, however, no aether or spacetime drag so we
can't detect the aether by optical velocity measurements. We do not
need to do so because spacetime is illuminated by light, and light is
the absolute reference frame.
Regards,
Edward Meisner
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: jcamp@mr.net (John Camp)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 04:07:09 GMT
> > John McCarthy sez:
> Experimentation is not engineering unless it is aimed at a
>practical objective. Someone (I forget the name) observed that a
>compass needle was deflected when an electric current was turned on or
>off in a nearby wire. This was the first connection between
>electricity and magnetism. It was investigated scientifically long
>before applications could be found.
>
>You are conflating experimental science with engineering - an error
>that the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board of the National
>Research Council has made repeatedly.
I would disagree, as much as I like the word *conflating,* which I suspect
will be this year's intellectual word of the year.
I've always thought (since taking a couple of courses in the philosophy of
science as an undergrad, lo those many decades ago) that proper Science
involves a method, or an approach, or a state of mind, or whatever you might
wish to call it, that formalizes skepticism and insists on empirical evidence
before certain theoretical propositions will be considered as demonstrated (or
even as likely.) If one simply says that noticing the deflection of a compass
needle near an electric current represents science, then one could also say
that noticing that a seed produces a plant is also science and the person who
noticed it a scientist, even though that person might reject any concept of
formalized skepticism and attribute the production of the plant to one of his
household gods. I'm suggesting that there are many *science-like* activities
(that may even use the techniques, language and instruments of science) which
are not really Science -- engineering is one, processural archaeology is
another, quantitative history another. (I would agree that noticing a needle
deflection and then doing a careful series of studies to find out the degree
of deflection, the laws of deflection, etc., are Science; using the
deflection to set off a burglar alarm, or detect a wall stud, is not.)
What I was suggesting in my first post is that a lot of social and technical
advancements claimed by "scientists" were actually the result of
"science-like" activity, and were discovered by people without knowledge or
use of Science as a means of investigation.
The fact that North American Indians used red-willow bark for centuries as an
analgesic, not knowing specifically that it contained salicylic acid, was a
product of intelligent observation and insight, not science; the production of
the same salicylic acid by Bayer, as aspirin, seems to me more akin to
engineering than science, since the desirable result had already been observed
and what was needed was technique, rather than any new insight.
Where is the Science in this?
JC
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:50:04 GMT
In talk.origins weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
wrote:
>John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
>: The slogan "Science cannot provide value?" is worthy of a high priced
>: political consultant. Silke has opportunities she should not neglect.
>
>: Although science has cured the sick, reduced infant mortality, taken
>: us to the moon and given us Usenet, it cannot provide value. I'm sure
>: Silke will readily explain the apparent paradox.
>
>: In the meantime, who needs your damn value?
>
>How silly can you get when you feel attacked? Very, even McCarthy,
>obviously. Does _science_ say it's good to cure the sick? Does _science_
>say it's good to reduce infant mortality? Does _science_, finally,
>suggest that it's good to go to the moon?
>
>You have to distinguish between two statements.
>
>a) science doesn't provide value
>b) science doesn't provide anything valuable.
>
>They are not the same.
>
>I'm amazed; I thought this much about ethics they taught you somewhere in
>highschool.
>
Silke,
This really looks like one of the discussions where each side has very
different meanings to the words. Do you mean that science does not
provide VALUE, that is science does not help create a social
constructed meaning to the word "value". If so, we are in agreement.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
Though it would take him a long time to understand the principle,
it was that to be paid for one's joy is to steal.
Mark Helprin
Subject: Re: Where's the theory? (was: Specialized terminology)
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:46:31 GMT
In talk.origins dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson) wrote:
>In article <19961120145400.JAA16501@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>lbsys@aol.com writes:
>
>> Never. Doug was on a public forum lately. The talk wasn't as funny or
>> whitty as one may have expected, but at least he threw in a lot of
>> smileys, ever was very polite to anyone and also made a lot of jokes on
>> himself - three behavioural facts separating him from moggin by
>> lightyears... And if not for that: when in doubt, he didn't claim to know
>> it all, but rather openly admitted his lack of knowledge... This alone
>> would have done to find out... ;-)
>
>Is it me, or does anyone else notice that Moggin is just about the only
>person around here who goes into these drawn-out discussions with total
>thoroughness, responding to every point, commenting on comments on
>comments, without getting boring or entirely forgetting the substance
>of the discourse, in which - unlike certain scientific nerds to remain
>unnamed - he has interesting things to say (despite his unconscionably
>absurd politics)?
>
>
Assuming those are my only choices, It is just you.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
Though it would take him a long time to understand the principle,
it was that to be paid for one's joy is to steal.
Mark Helprin
