arndt@lymph.DEC (09/21/84)
To Ray Chen, Saumya Debray, et al:
Saumya defines evidence (Jul27 posting) as "meeting the appropriate criteria
of reproducibility in a controlled
environment, etc."
Is there anything else that is "evidence" in any sense? About the physical
world or anything else? That is, how is it possible to make a meaningful
statement about anything other than what you can physically quantify???
Isn't Saumya's "definition" a result of a non-physical process of "thinking"
about the physical world. To say that we don't know and "I am only concerned
with what I can "test" in a physical sense of the definition above only begs
the question, it seems to me. Because the definition itself is the RESULT of
a non-physically testable process!
To put it another way. What's "behind" our perception of the physical world?
Or what is the basis of our thinking about the physical world? If it is a
non-physical process (thinking, logic, wild ass guesses) then why is a look at
"reality" from a non-physical (non-20th century science) viewpoint somehow
not valid?
A while ago I posted a comment by Paul Davies in his new (then new) book, GOD
AND THE NEW PHYSICS, in which he said that at bottem it was a matter of "faith"
(a priori choice) to choose a creator or a many-worlds theory of origins for
reality. By the way, he chose no creator.
Now I agree that legs whatshername should stay on the stage where she looks
pretty. But get MAD at her? The milk of human kindness . . . .
Have I seen a contradiction in your thinking? Have I made any sense!!
Anyway, I don't trust educated people (you know, the one who sat in the classes
picking their pimples and solving those long equations and fulfilled all the
requirements for their paper on the wall) who are highly trained (six courses)
in one field and yet can speak to the universe with such certainty. I might
add this could also include myself, but I won't.
Let's adjurn to the pub and continue this discussion over a couple of pitchers.
Keep chargin'
Ken Arndt