bob@chemstor.UUCP (Robert Weigel) (06/04/87)
>From: cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) >In article <225@chemstor.UUCP>, bob@chemstor.UUCP (Robert Weigel) writes: > >>and randomness. Either way, I'm not in control,.. right!! My Bible says God >>created the creatures out of the dirt, but he made man in his image. ( With >>a free will too!) Somehow, that seems to fit reality a little better in view >>of who I am. But keep on matching those Chromosomes! > >These types eventually show up everywhere, don't they? Just like weeds. Wow Chris,.. you write your own material??? Actually, my "type" as you put it is, both on this network and the world, as statistically dominant as productive plants are in an average field. But let us not take the analogy too far. I guess you thought by ripping my last paragraph out from its groundwork everyone would forget what was written right before that, and you could draw a steriotypical conclusion of who I am for all those incapable of thinking for themselves. It seems that you are also trying to define science for me? Is not science simply the compilation and correlation of sensory data, towards the future prediction of events?? Did anyone ever really get down and say "only information compiled by out external senses (ie. eyes, ears, etc.) allowed here? Even if they did, I don't see why I should respect their opinion without CONCLUSIVE proof that those are the only sensors. I know, I know, that's not possible to provide, right? So why don't you go back and try to provide a decent comment on my words before the ones you quoted, because they are quite conclusive. If you consider them, you will find that either there is really more to me and you than what we see, or everything is meaningless. ------------------------------- "Who is the greater fool: He that claims to know truth, or the one who scoffs while himself searching for it?" -me Total disclaimer--My words are not my own, nor my employers.
pell@boulder.UUCP (06/06/87)
(Bob Weigel) writes: > >>(Christopher Young): >> >>These types eventually show up everywhere, don't they? Just like weeds. > > > Wow Chris,.. you write your own material??? Actually, my "type" as > I guess you thought by ripping my last paragraph out from its groundwork >everyone would forget what was written right before that, and you could draw >a steriotypical conclusion of who I am for all those incapable of thinking for >themselves. It seems that you are also trying to define science for me? Is >not science simply the compilation and correlation of sensory data, towards >the future prediction of events?? Did anyone ever really get down and say >"only information compiled by out external senses >(ie. eyes, ears, etc.) allowed >here? > >------------------------------- bob, I agree that chris' comment was a non-sequitor. But I must add that in your choice to reply to this "straw man" non-argument you have lowered yourself to the same level. I don't think chris meant his comment to be a logical rebuttal to you, But as an off the cuff remark. I, on the other hand, really would have liked to have you respond to my comments regarding the fact that the very thing to which you object in science is inherent in your own cosmology. You apparently would rather comment on one liners like chris' rather than respond to what was (in my less-than-humble opinion) an intelligent comment. I wish to add that my mail concerning my posting was quite possitive. But, sadly, I've received none from you. So bob, if you agree that god is the prime efficient cause and all things derive through the obvious chain of causation from her, are you not drawn to the conclusion that you are the "product of history"--the same thing that upset you about science? About what defines science: I will not debate with you whether science can admit evidence not limited to the common senses--I will grant your possition for the moment. But, the test of falsification IS a crucial part of what constitutes a scientific theory. Briefly, it must be possible to imagine some sensory evidence that can disprove a theory, for it to be considered scientific. If any sensory evidence is merely incorporated into the belief by qualifying the definitions, the beleif cannot be considered scientific. The "scientific god" dies the death of a thousand qualifications. I wished to point out that science and religion are of different realms. If you wish to adhere to your possition that you can have a scientifically sound faith, I ask that you respond to the points above and in my original posting. Anyone interested in the original posting can get it from me. To the fellow who asked where he could find published works of mine on the topic: (incase my mail to you bounced) such publications exist . But I can recommend far more competent commentary on the topic than my own. tony (few degrees are worth remembering--and none are worth predicting) P.S. sorry for the poorly thought out response, but I am pressed for time.
cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) (06/12/87)
In article <283@chemstor.UUCP>, bob@chemstor.UUCP (Robert Weigel) writes: > > >From: cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) > >In article <225@chemstor.UUCP>, bob@chemstor.UUCP (Robert Weigel) writes: > > > >>and randomness. Either way, I'm not in control,.. right!! My Bible says God > >>created the creatures out of the dirt, but he made man in his image. ( With > >>a free will too!) Somehow, that seems to fit reality a little better in view > >>of who I am. But keep on matching those Chromosomes! > > > >These types eventually show up everywhere, don't they? Just like weeds. > > > I guess you thought by ripping my last paragraph out from its groundwork > everyone would forget what was written right before that, and you could draw > a steriotypical conclusion of who I am for all those incapable of thinking for > themselves. It seems that you are also trying to define science for me? I took what what relevant; I don't remember what else you wrote, except that the entire aim seemed to be trashing science (see below) for something out of the Bible. As far as the question of what science is, I suggest you study it. There is a large body of work on science and scientific method. I also recommend reading McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 529 F. Supp. 1255 (1982) for some interesting arguments about what science is, and a very well done analysis of the arguments. Try reading Popper. I don't have to define science; it's already been defined. And one property of science is that it does not consider non-falsifiable theories as its territory. Included in this class are supernatural phenomenon. God is supernatural. God is not a scientific concept. Even if God does exist (and I will not say what my opinion on the matter is here), God's existence is not scientific concept. > possible to provide, right? So why don't you go back and try to provide a > decent comment on my words before the ones you quoted, because they are quite > conclusive. If you consider them, you will find that either there is really > more to me and you than what we see, or everything is meaningless. > ------------------------------- > "Who is the greater fool: He that claims to know truth, or the one who scoffs > while himself searching for it?" -me Provide me again with the words, and I will. And I do not disagree that there may be more to it than that. I don't necessarily agree either. However, science is not concerned with questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" As far as scoffing goes, what I saw in your post was the typical creationist type scoff against science which I've become so familliar with. Quite frankly, creationism can never be considered science by anybody who understand it. The Bible just doesn't cut it scientifically speaking. Well, I won't go on. Try reading the case I mentioned above. -- -- Chris. (cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu)