weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (05/08/86)
I'm directing followups to net.sci. This sort of stuff does *not* belong in net.origins. In article <499@magic.DEC.COM> thain@magic.DEC.COM (Glenn Thain) writes: > The vaugness of the language is also present in quantum mechanics. I'm no >authority on either linquistics or quantum mechanics, yet I'm willing to admit >bozons, quarks, and the like exist. The language of quantum mechanics--mathematics--is *extremely* precise, not vague. Please don't insult QM and mathematics by calling them "vague" just because you don't know the ropes. > Most fields of science 'grey' out for the >layman, so why should the language of metephysics be any different. Right. But nobody *knows* what Sunny is talking about, however. Not even roughly what she is talking about. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>[on initial disbelief] > In the early days of science, alchemists had the same problem. Alchemists? They still encounter opposition. > Freud >encountered the same disbelief. And Freud is still considered garbage by the scientific community. > Most recently, all of what science knew about >Saturn and Uranus just changed. So science isn't without it's blind sides. Huh? This is a perfect example of science looking out there and changing its mind. The exact *opposite* of a blind side. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > When Freud opened the door to psychoanalysis, there were no guidelines, >and it failed every known test that the scientific community put to it at that >time. Again I cite that the testing might not be up to an accurate account of >what's been present. Yet the overwhelming data turned out by proffessional >psychic researchers can't be ignored either. Funny how you like to compare psi with Freudian garbage, which still fails every known test that the scientific community throws at it. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720