pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (03/16/88)
Please forgive the new base note. Disk space seems to be at a premium here, and notes don't last but about a week. This is replies and amplifications to people who responded to my first note. I don't mean to offend anyone but am brutally honest for rhetorical effect on occasion. To markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu who wrote: > ... So, of course, science is not logical at the bottommost level. ... A good point. He also wrote: > ... or the way the Library of Alexandria was burned down because of a deep- > seated prejudice against people who seek knowledge. ... Are you sure that you have correctly identified the reason that the library burned? I do not have a reference to hand but my often faulty memory has Livy saying it was an accident connected with the wars that followed Ceaser's murder. There are larger points here. A prejudice against people who seek knowledge is not so much a phenomenon of the classical world as it is of the modern, and knowledge of antiquity (like so many other kinds of knowledge) is sorely lacking amoung scientists. He also wrote: > ... > Future (and present) generations will definitely look upon us as primitive, > but they will not possess the obsolete arrogance to regard us in disgust and > contempt. > ... But I only asserted that they might look upon science in disgust. It is impossible for me to state what will actually be the case. For all I know they will regard us a race of Gods who created life and destroyed it too. My point is that there is evil (for want of a better word) in science as a social instution--please do not confuse this statement with the assertion that science is evil, whatever that might mean. I am only pointing out an imperfection. I am willing to tolerate the less than perfect, but I am not willing to tolerate imperfection worshiped as its antithesis. And lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writing about science and modern medicine said : > ... But they beat the hell out of the way it used to be. ... I used to think that. A seminary student I once knew suggested to me that maybe people really led better lives in the middle ages. I thought he was crazy. How could I even talk to someone so dense as that. But now, older and wiser, having seen something of our modern world--not just the fairy land campuses, not just the hedonistic narcissistic yuppiedoms, I have grave doubts. Those words--narcissist, hedonist--come from antiquity. Those were scienceless times but deeper and more intellectual as our language still shows. rob@amadeus.TEK.COM writes: > I don't understand. What possible connection could high Tc > superconductivity have with cosmology? ... > ... I will explain. The point I am making is that the widely published and popularized discussions of what happened during the first instants of the universe (if you can believe that there ever was such a thing) are not science in the sense generating hypotheses that can be tested by experiment but are very much science in the sense of religion. And my argument to support both assertions is that discussions about this primordial instant can only be so much nonsense. Why? because we don't even know about the world around us (witness high Tc superconductivity--there is even talk now of a fifth force!!!!!) So how on earth :-) can someone pontificate about a time billions of years distant, at densities of matter never otherwise attained, and when the whole fabric of the universe was small enough to dance on the head of an extra-universal pin. Any physicist who seriously proposes that the laws of physics as observed from earth are just as valid then and there as they are here should be shot. Such discussion is, as science, absurd, but as religion, right at home. And edk@gryphon.CTS.COM writes: > The God of Science differs from all others in favoring the > intelligent, well-informed, and skeptical. For them she performs > miracles. All other gods seem to avoid these people for their > demonstrations. A sentiment which everyone must recognize is not science but religion. In fact, this is the very creed I imagine being intoned on NOVA every time I watch it. :-) From fmm@princeton.edu : > ... > Velikovsky's "speculations" conflict with some of our most > basic scientific knowledge in a variety of disciplines. > ... Of course. The controversy with Velikovsky was over pre-publication censorship and his "unscientific" but reasonable methodology which was based on finding similarities in the mythologies of widely dispersed cultures. His claims are no worse than those about the great primordial instant--both are bunk, but Velikovsky was a lot more original about it. fmm@princeton also explained how the supercollider can not benifit from the recent discoveries in high Tc superconductivity, and while I am skeptical I must admit he may be right. Nevertheles he was silent on the issue of why we have to do this research now and can't wait til a time when we can better afford it. Personally, if we are talking about big projects, I would rather see an effort to decode the human genetic code, and after that other species too or maybe even first. There are many things that I would put at a higher priority: superconductivity, peace in the middle east, truth, justice, better networks, parallel computing, .... Maybe planetary missions, I'd like one of these guys that knows so much about what happened during the first second of the universe to tell me what its like at Neptune's core, or for that matter two inches below the surface of Venus. fmm@princeton also says: > What? It may be that the life expectancy of a healthy adult has not > increased much. But because of the dramatic decline in infant and child > mortality, the life expectancy of a newborn is much greater in a modern > society than in a primitive one. This may or may not be so, live birth statistics are notoriously uninterpretable--what constitutes a live birth and what does not? Everyone figures it differently. That's the problem. And even if true, I am no right to lifer, and it takes a more compelling argument to influence me. fmm@princeton adds: > In any case, mortality is not the sole measure of health! You might > also consider what modern medicine has done to alleviate physical > suffering. This is truely dubious! I don't mean to be insulting, but you must have your eyes closed to be so remarkably naive. Don't you know there is a debate raging right now in the medical community over mercy killing? Doctors are getting to the point where they can't take it any more and are rebelling against the pain they cause to the terminally ill. This is a new phenomenon, people were never tortured like this before. Another debate is raging over the so called cancer cures. People go through hell to be 'cured' from cancer, but the survival rates mostly have not gone up. Many people who have been 'cured' of cancer say that if they get it again they will die instead. And of course you can't get morphine over the counter anymore. Physical suffering florishes today. fmm@princeton also suggested that the suicide rate is not what it is because of the empty lives we live but because we have higher expectations. There might be so. But, I think it is the empty lives. Finally fmm@princeton said I was welcome to go live the life of a savage. More naivity, if fmm@princeton would think about it instead of comming back with a knee-jerk jingoism he would realize himself that no one has such an option. Indeed there are no savages left, at all. Primitive societies have been destroyed; the subjugated remains are at feeble caracatures. And govett@avsd.UUCP writes: > I think you NEED science to be a religion. You are looking for absolutes > that only dogma can provide. You are part right. I am looking for absolutes. And on reflection, while I reserve the right to change my mind, I think all men, especially scientists, are looking for absolutes right along with me. If someone says otherwise, you will see me giving an askance glance. But I don't need science to be a religion. You miss my whole complaint. I complain that science IS religion. I want science to be science. I want religion to be religion. Alas, religions like primitive societies have become caracatures of themselves; and alas that is another issue. More important, science is a bad religion--it completely ignores many areas religions usually address. And look at what that has done to the world. govett@avsd.UUCP adds: > The scientific method (more specifically, mathematics) is the only > reasonably effective technique man has developed for understanding > the universe, however imperfectly. I have no patience for confusing mathematics with science. If you knew what you were saying, you wouldn't say it. And if the scientific method is, as you say, the unique effective technique for understanding, why aren't we all president? Do you exclude politics from your 'universe', or do you regard it as part of the scientific method?
jc@heart-of-gold (John M Chambers x7780 1E342) (03/17/88)
[This is a test to see whether I can successfully followup articles and get them distributed from this new usenet installation. Please ignore any thought-provoking ideas which may follow... ;-] > I used to think that. A seminary student I once knew suggested to > me that maybe people really led better lives in the middle ages. > I thought he was crazy. Some of them did. Kings, princes, bishops, .... The rest didn't. There are also a lot of people in the world today who aren't any better off than their ancestors were 1000 years ago. The benefits of modernity have mostly applied to people in a few parts of the world. That doesn't mean that those benefits don't exist. > I will explain. The point I am making is that the widely published > and popularized discussions of what happened during the first instants > of the universe (if you can believe that there ever was such a thing) > are not science in the sense generating hypotheses that can be tested > by experiment but are very much science in the sense of religion. Nonsense. An important part of any science is taking the current theories and using them to make predictions (or postdictions, in this case) to the point of absurdity. This is commonly known at "testing to destruction", and it can be very effective. Unlike religions, science doesn't insist that its practitioners always be right. Just testable. Granted, it's hard to see how we might test theories about the first millisecond, but then, a couple of years back it was hard to see how we might test theories about the shape of the earth's core or the events inside a supernova. Now we know some ways of testing such things... > And my argument to support both assertions is that discussions > about this primordial instant can only be so much nonsense. Why? > because we don't even know about the world around us (witness > high Tc superconductivity--there is even talk now of a fifth force!!!!!) > So how on earth :-) can someone pontificate about a time billions > of years distant, at densities of matter never otherwise attained, > and when the whole fabric of the universe was small enough to dance on the > head of an extra-universal pin. In some cases (such as Einstein's famous Gedankenexperimenten), the absurd results turn out to be valid. If you think this isn't science, well, then, you just don't understand science. It also borders on being mathematics; it is in fact the application of mathematical methods to scientific theories. Historically, it has been quite productive in many scientific fields. The only real danger in such wild theorizing is that people may take it far too seriously, in which case it tends to become religion and not science. > Any physicist who seriously proposes that the laws > of physics as observed from earth are just as valid then and there > as they are here should be shot. Such discussion is, as science, absurd, > but as religion, right at home. Nah, he/she should just be subject to others discovering ways to test his/her wild calculations. That's the only way such ideas can ever make it into the realm of real science, anyway. But it's often rather embarassing for all parties involved. On the other hand, if we were to shoot all scientists who do wild, absurd conjecturing, we'd have knocked off many of our best scientists in their early days. For instance, back in the 40's, it was patently obvious to most scientists that the genetic code had to be carried in proteins. Some renegades suggested that it was in DNA, but that was absurd; DNA is far too simple a chemical to hold so much information. > > The God of Science differs from all others in favoring the > > intelligent, well-informed, and skeptical. For them she performs > > miracles. All other gods seem to avoid these people for their > > demonstrations. > > A sentiment > which everyone must recognize is not science but religion. In fact, > this is the very creed I imagine being intoned on NOVA every time > I watch it. :-) Nah, just history. Anyhow, don't tell me what I must recognize! (:-) Let's face it, faith healers are universally charlatans, out to get your bucks. If you believe otherwise, well, you are free to give them your money, sucker. Don't expect me to. > I would put at a higher priority: superconductivity, > peace in the middle east, truth, justice, better networks, parallel > computing, .... Oh, right! If we wait for these things to happen, we'll see the sun cooling down first. Well, maybe superconductivity and parallel computing; I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the others. Better to waste money on research that just might pay off, than invest it on chasing such wild geese. > ... I'd like one of these guys that knows so > much about what happened during the first second of the universe > to tell me what its like at Neptune's core, or for > that matter two inches below the surface of Venus. Some of them are sufficiently arrogant to have made the calculations. And some of them just might be correct. Ya wanna hear about the super-conducting earth-size diamond that may be the core of Jupiter? How about the reasons why Jupiter (and possibly Saturn) may be the home of most of the life in the solar system? Now if we could only get funding to go out and test these and other absurdities... It wasn't so very long ago that even most scientists thought it absurd that rocks could fall from the sky. Now it's accepted that major extinctions have been caused by rocks falling from the sky. One could be headed our way right now. I'd like to know just how absurd this is, before it hits me.
fmm@notecnirp.Princeton.EDU (F. Miller Maley) (03/17/88)
Looking for some common ground in this discussion.... In article <73600013@uiucdcsp> pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >And lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writing about science and modern medicine said : >> ... But they beat the hell out of the way it used to be. ... > >I used to think that.... But now, older and wiser,...I have grave doubts. O.K. Presumably life in the Middle Ages was better in some respects than life in modern developed nations, and worse in other respects. I suspect that the ways in which it was better are few. What do you have in mind? >... >The point I am making is that the widely published >and popularized discussions of what happened during the first instants >of the universe (if you can believe that there ever was such a thing) >are not science in the sense generating hypotheses that can be tested >by experiment but are very much science in the sense of religion. >And my argument to support both assertions is that discussions >about this primordial instant can only be so much nonsense. Why? >because we don't even know about the world around us... I think you are overstating your case here. Extrapolation is a commonplace in science, and often it works very well. (And when it doesn't, there is usually some interesting science to be done.) If you are saying that scientific theories are nonsense when they concern things we cannot directly experiment with, then you must reject most of astronomy and physics (and perhaps mathematics?) as well as cosmology. After all, we can't directly test theories of gravity or electromagnetism with objects much bigger than a laboratory; we have to observe things we can't influence. Yet our theories of gravitational and electromagnetic phenomena work as well in the large as they do in the small, as far as we can observe. The newly discovered effects such as high-temperature superconductivity and the disputed "fifth force" are very minor in terms of their effects on the universe as a whole. That's not to say that we might not someday discover a phenomenon that invalidates our theories about, say, the early universe. If so, then (one hopes) there will eventually be a paradigm shift, and (one hopes) our theories will approximate reality more closely than before. That's part of science; it's no reason to STOP doing science! By the way, it's possible to simulate the conditions of the early universe at least locally -- in collisions of high-energy particles. >From fmm@princeton.edu : >> Velikovsky's "speculations" conflict with some of our most >> basic scientific knowledge in a variety of disciplines. > >Of course. The controversy with Velikovsky was over pre-publication >censorship and his "unscientific" but reasonable methodology which >was based on finding similarities in the mythologies of widely dispersed >cultures. His claims are no worse than those about the great >primordial instant--both are bunk, but Velikovsky was a lot more >original about it. There's a basic difference, and it's not originality. Velikovsky's speculations conflict with things we *know* about as well as anything one might claim to know. (That's not a valid reason for censoring his views, of course.) Modern cosmological theories are reasonable extrapolations from things we know; while they are definitely uncertain, they suffer from no such conflict. >fmm@princeton also explained how the supercollider can not benifit >from the recent discoveries in high Tc superconductivity, >and while I am skeptical I must admit he may be right. >Nevertheles he was silent on the issue >of why we have to do this research now and can't wait >til a time when we can better afford it.... That's a good question, I agree. Personally I would love to see the SSC built, because I am interested in the things it might reveal. And as far as my own tax dollars go, I have no complaint about the cost. However, there are plenty of other good projects to be funded, and given a more-or-less fixed budget, I think the money would be better spent elsewhere. >fmm@princeton also says: >> ....In any case, mortality is not the sole measure of health! You >> might also consider what modern medicine has done to alleviate >> physical suffering. > >This is truly dubious! I don't mean to be insulting, but >you must have your eyes closed to be so remarkably naive. >Don't you know there is a debate raging right now in the medical community >over mercy killing? Doctors are getting to the point where they >can't take it any more and are rebelling against the pain they cause >to the terminally ill. This is a new phenomenon, people were never >tortured like this before. I presume you mean "tortured in this way before". >Another debate is raging over the so called cancer cures. People >go through hell to be 'cured' from cancer, but the survival rates >mostly have not gone up. Many people who have been 'cured' of >cancer say that if they get it again they will die instead. >And of course you can't get morphine over the counter anymore. >Physical suffering florishes today. These are good points, and I don't dispute the last one. However, they don't invalidate what I said. Let me clarify: modern medicine has made available many procedures and treatments that can alleviate suffering. (By "modern", I include things like anaesthesia, aspirin, and the germ theory of disease, not just the latest techniques of surgery, chemotherapy, radiation treatment, etc.) If one doesn't want the benefits and costs of modern medical treatments, one doesn't have to consent to treatment. >Finally fmm@princeton said I was welcome to go live the life of a >savage. More naivity, if fmm@princeton would think about it instead >of comming back with a knee-jerk jingoism he would realize himself >that no one has such an option. Indeed there are no savages left, at >all. Primitive societies have been destroyed; the subjugated remains >are at feeble caracatures. Let's not start a flame-contest here. What I said was, "return to a prescientific way of life." Granted, you can't forget all your scientific knowledge, nor can you find a culture that has not been altered by contact with industrialized societies. But you can certainly decline most of the fruits of science and technology, if you think it would help you lead a fuller life. -- Miller Maley 609-987-2808 | ...!princeton!fmm | 3x10^5 km/sec. It's not just Princeton Computer Science | fmm@princeton.edu | a good idea. It's the law.
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt) (03/17/88)
In article <124@heart-of-gold> jc@heart-of-gold (John M Chambers x7780 1E342) writes: >> I used to think that. A seminary student I once knew suggested to >> me that maybe people really led better lives in the middle ages. >> I thought he was crazy. >Some of them did. Kings, princes, bishops, .... The rest didn't. Show me a middle-ages king with central heating/air conditioning! Show me a middle-ages bishop with a morning cup of coffee! Show me a middle-ages prince with usenet! The purpose of civilization is to keep me comfortable and entertained. ;~) >Nonsense. An important part of any science is taking the current theories >and using them to make predictions (or postdictions, in this case) to the >point of absurdity. This is commonly known at "testing to destruction", >and it can be very effective. Unlike religions, science doesn't insist >that its practitioners always be right. Just testable. A lot of us make a living trying to prove other wrong..... >> And my argument to support both assertions is that discussions >> about this primordial instant can only be so much nonsense. Why? >> because we don't even know about the world around us (witness >> high Tc superconductivity--there is even talk now of a fifth force!!!!!) >> So how on earth :-) can someone pontificate about a time billions >> of years distant, at densities of matter never otherwise attained, >> and when the whole fabric of the universe was small enough to dance on the >> head of an extra-universal pin. And isn't it terrific!!!! People keep learning things, investigating, and generally exploring!!! There is always something else!!! >> Any physicist who seriously proposes that the laws >> of physics as observed from earth are just as valid then and there >> as they are here should be shot. Such discussion is, as science, absurd, >> but as religion, right at home. I am wide open on counter suggestions. This might shock you, but there are a few.... BTW: heard of "cosmic strings"? >> I would put at a higher priority: superconductivity, >> peace in the middle east, truth, justice, better networks, parallel >> computing, .... >Oh, right! If we wait for these things to happen, we'll see the sun >cooling down first. Well, maybe superconductivity and parallel computing; I'll bite: what's "justice"? You want religion? REligion is why they are fighting in the middle east!!! Cancel "religion" and substitute "science" and maybe they will. Just for fun, why is "superconductivity" high priority than "justice"? >Some of them are sufficiently arrogant to have made the calculations. And >some of them just might be correct. Ya wanna hear about the super-conducting >earth-size diamond that may be the core of Jupiter? How about the reasons >why Jupiter (and possibly Saturn) may be the home of most of the life in the >solar system? Now if we could only get funding to go out and test these and >other absurdities... What is "absurdities"? Fortunately, the universe is not bounded by what you imagine. In fact, it probably isn't bounded by what you CAN imagine! (Isn't that lucky? P.S. I include every human being in the "can imagine" category. Don't take it personal!) Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5
gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (03/19/88)
In article <121@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes: >Show me a middle-ages king with central heating/air conditioning! The Romans knew how to build houses with central heating. A kind of air-conditioning was brought about with clever architecture. They also know how to construct indoor plumbing. All of these techniques were learned from earlier civilizations.
lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) (03/19/88)
In article <73600013@uiucdcsp> pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >I used to think that. A seminary student I once knew suggested to >me that maybe people really led better lives in the middle ages. >I thought he was crazy. How could I even talk to someone so dense >as that. But now, older and wiser, having seen something of our >modern world--not just the fairy land campuses, not just the hedonistic >narcissistic yuppiedoms, I have grave doubts. > >Those words--narcissist, hedonist--come from antiquity. Those were >scienceless times but deeper and more intellectual as our language still shows. A short checklist: - intestinal parasites. - lice. - no changes of clothing. - no underwear. - no hot water for baths. - no soap until post-Roman times. (Technology in the service of mankind! ) - no running water, or else downcreek from someone else's running water. - outhouses. - no dentists - and tooth decay was NOT invented recently. - backbreaking labor - literally. Dawn to dusk till you die of it. - dietary deficiencies. - vitamin D deficiency in winter. You too can be Snow White or a dwarf. - creosote poisoning of the lungs. See further, teepee and longhouse. You too can live in a chimneyless room with an open fire. Oddly enough, people living on tropical islands escaped almost all of this (except the intestinal parasites). I guess swimming in warm salt water kills lice. Seafood and tropical sun fix all the deficiencies. Few fires. No need of clothes. If the birth rate was controlled (by infanticide), life was OK. Well, not very intellectual, actually, and heavily marred by war, restrictive religions ("taboo"), and fun customs like ritual self-mutilation. Sigh. -- Don lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu CMU Computer Science
livesey@sun.uucp (Jon Livesey) (03/20/88)
In article <740@actnyc.UUCP>, gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: > In article <121@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes: > > >Show me a middle-ages king with central heating/air conditioning! > > The Romans knew how to build houses with central heating. A kind > of air-conditioning was brought about with clever architecture. > They also know how to construct indoor plumbing. All of these > techniques were learned from earlier civilizations. Not to belabour the obvious, but the Romans lived about a thousand years before the Middle ages and their western Empire pretty much collapsed five hundred years before. Judging from Roman Britain, the main use the people of the early Middle Ages made of Roman buildings containing hypocausts was to use them as handy quarries. For example, the tower of the cathedral in St Albans is constructed from Roman brick salvaged from the Roman villas at Verulamium, some few miles to the north. It seems to be the case that the people of the early Middle Ages in Britain were unable to profit from Roman architectural techniques even when they had examples to study. Even at the end of the middle ages, central heating was pretty much unknown. This is less true, apparently, in continental Europe, where some buildings of the Carolingian Empire are conscious imitations of late Roman constructions, for example, Charles the Great's chapel at Aix versus Ravenna. However, this may be due to cultural exchange with the Eastern Empire. I'd like to see a reference to the evidence that the Romans learned about hypocaust construction from earlier civilizations. Are we thinking about the other towns of Latium here? Jon.
govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) (03/22/88)
> In article <121@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes: > > >Show me a middle-ages king with central heating/air conditioning! > > The Romans knew how to build houses with central heating. A kind > of air-conditioning was brought about with clever architecture. > They also know how to construct indoor plumbing. All of these > techniques were learned from earlier civilizations. Termites have known climate control for millions of years. But did medieval kings know the wonders of plastics? Good thing we don't live in the middle ages or we might be subject to plagues. (This is intended to be ironic, so restrain your didactic impulses.)
govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) (03/22/88)
> In article <73600013@uiucdcsp> pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >I used to think that. A seminary student I once knew suggested to > >me that maybe people really led better lives in the middle ages. > >I thought he was crazy. How could I even talk to someone so dense > >as that. But now, older and wiser, having seen something of our > >modern world--not just the fairy land campuses, not just the hedonistic > >narcissistic yuppiedoms, I have grave doubts. > > > >Those words--narcissist, hedonist--come from antiquity. Those were > >scienceless times but deeper and more intellectual as our language still shows. > > A short checklist: > > - intestinal parasites. > - lice. > - no changes of clothing. > - no underwear. > - no hot water for baths. > - no soap until post-Roman times. (Technology in the service of mankind! ) > - no running water, or else downcreek from someone else's running water. > - outhouses. > - no dentists - and tooth decay was NOT invented recently. > - backbreaking labor - literally. Dawn to dusk till you die of it. > - dietary deficiencies. > - vitamin D deficiency in winter. You too can be Snow White or a dwarf. > - creosote poisoning of the lungs. See further, teepee and longhouse. You > too can live in a chimneyless room with an open fire. > > Oddly enough, people living on tropical islands escaped almost all of this > (except the intestinal parasites). I guess swimming in warm salt water kills > lice. Seafood and tropical sun fix all the deficiencies. Few fires. No need > of clothes. If the birth rate was controlled (by infanticide), life was OK. > Well, not very intellectual, actually, and heavily marred by war, > restrictive religions ("taboo"), and fun customs like ritual > self-mutilation. Sigh. > -- Some of the luxuries of island life: - tidal waves - volcanoes - lice (despite what you say) - typhoons - malaria - malnutrition - raids by neighboring tribes (cannibals, slavers) Some of the luxuries of our medieval ancestors: - rootedness - certainty (as outlined in the Bible) - identity with nature These should not be minimized, especially since most Americans have no inkling of the security these engender. .
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt) (03/22/88)
In article <740@actnyc.UUCP> gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >In article <121@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes: > >>Show me a middle-ages king with central heating/air conditioning! > >The Romans knew how to build houses with central heating. A kind >of air-conditioning was brought about with clever architecture. >They also know how to construct indoor plumbing. All of these >techniques were learned from earlier civilizations. Yeah, I lived in Italy for 3 years, and paid a few visits to these "houses with central....." There is a difference between "know how" and "did". For current examples, see our space program. (opinion: They STILL don't have it figured out in a lot of places!!!) Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5
todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) (03/23/88)
> In article <121@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes: > > >Show me a middle-ages king with central heating/air conditioning! > The Romans knew how to build houses with central heating. A kind > of air-conditioning was brought about with clever architecture. > They also know how to construct indoor plumbing. All of these > techniques were learned from earlier civilizations. the word plumber comes from the old latin word for lead
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt) (03/25/88)
In article <1291@uop.edu> todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) writes: >> In article <121@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes: >> >> >Show me a middle-ages king with central heating/air conditioning! >> The Romans knew how to build houses with central heating. A kind >> of air-conditioning was brought about with clever architecture. >> They also know how to construct indoor plumbing. All of these >> techniques were learned from earlier civilizations. :the word plumber comes from the old latin word for lead The use of a heavy-metal poison does not bode well for indications of advanced civilization. Sort of like the mess we got..... Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5
govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) (03/29/88)
> > The use of a heavy-metal poison does not bode well for indications of > advanced civilization. > Case in point: Led Zeppelin groupies (not that they represent any conceivable advanced civilization).