Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Metaphysics Message-ID: <1494@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 01:27:58 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1494 Posted: Wed Aug 14 01:27:58 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 14:49:32 EDT References: <969@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 134 Xref: watmath net.origins:2109 net.religion:7390 net.philosophy:2280 > Calm down, son, he was just appeasing those folks who think we provide > too much context for discussion. The "'>' quote" from you was in fact in > response to the "'>>>>' quote" from ... shoot, is that Mike? There was > just some other stuff in between that doesn't really matter. But anyway, > he's responding to your last statement which is correctly quoted, even if > not all of the context is provided. [BETH CHRISTY] Sorry to disappoint you. What he quoted was not only not me, it was him! Furthermore, taken out of context as it was, it obscured the original point: that referring to specific intended complexity built into as "seed" was implying a designer (note the word intended). This is very different from claiming that the potential for complexity was there, because saying that makes no assumptions about intentions or planned complexity. > And you're avoiding answering his > question. *Do* you think that a proto-universe with inherent potential > complexity similar to that of a seed would imply a creator? No, of course not. >> What notions? What pet theories? Who said science should be shackled? > >YOU did, by insisting that certain things are "not in the realm" of science, >BECAUSE they have names like "non-physical", "souls", etc. > So saying that something has limits is shackling it? You can't see > ultraviolet light, you poor shackled creature, you. Get real, Rich. Get clear. Be good with it. (Sorry, wrong discussion.) Insisting that something has limits when you cannot prove that a limiting point exists, or insisting that going beyond the limits you specify is invalid (perhaps because you are afraid of what scientific inquiry might discover about the nature fo what you claim lies beyond those limits), that is indeed shackling. Or an attempt at it. > That's a pretty emotional appeal coming from a "science uber alles" > kind of fellow. :-) One has a right to become emotionally charged about seeing fuzzy thinking allowed to masquerade as knowledge about reality. >>(Really putting >>the cart before the horse: making claims about aspects of the universe >>as being definitively beyond science so that one can then say science can't >>investigate them, which really simply means that they should not be subject >>to serious (scientific) inquiry.) > Huh? Does anybody understand this? I usre do. And people who don't presume that their eccentric wishful thinking notions MUST represent reality do too. But allow to go slowly. One might reasonably ask if the reason the anti-scientists talk so loudly about "the limits of science", and insist that science cannot properly investigate their claims about a "super-natural", is really because of the fact that if such investigation of the nature of those claims and their evidence and origin were to occur, it would show how shabby, how rooted in wishful thinking, they really are. >>>>Why should such examination have "limits"? >>> The limits are intrinsic and not externally imposed. >>What are they? And why don't they apply to "certain things"? > Why don't *what* apply to "certain things"? Limits? Limits apply to > everything. Even (gasp) science. Then tell us all what they are so that we'll know not to go beyond them by accident. :-? It sounds at this point like you'd just rather we didn't go beyond "certain" limits, because doing so, investigating the probability of reliability for certain beliefs that have a basis only in wishful thinking, might not be too pleasant. >>> That means it is unable to do certain things, just as a blind person >>> cannot see. For example, I would not judge the merits of a musical >>> composition using the scientific method. >>But you could examine what aspects of a piece MAKE it a "good" piece in a >>very scientific way. > Could you? Even tho there's never complete agreement on which music is > "good"? Even tho people's tastes vary over time? Even if you could nail > down all the factors that induce Mike to say "this music is good", could > you use that information to predict *anything* about what he'll say in 2 > years? And could you use it to predict anything about anybody else? If > you really can do this, you should, 'cause you'd make big bucks in the > record business. Someone beat me to it. > But until you do, I'd say the burden > of proof is on you to show how music can be scientifically judged as "good". You'll note that I never said that: I said that the components of a piece can be analyzed scientifically, and determine its internal elements. >>> I do not agree. >>Oh. I see. Thank you for clarifying that with such powerful reasoning. :-? > I *loathe* people who respond to the first sentence of a paragraph before > they even read what follows. Whatsa matter, Rich, can't comprehend an > entire paragraph at once? His reasoning followed on the very next line. Good for you and your loathing. You also seem to loathe clearcut rational reasoning, but that won't stop the rest of us. If you loathe awful horrible people like me, then don't bother discussing things with me. His statement was a separate "paragraph", and what's more I answered the points in the subsequent section. >>Well, since "love" is a word to describe what happens when all those factors >>come together, it "exists". But, alas, you don't care about what got it to >>be that way. > One may well end up being able to scientifically determine when someone > is in love and why. It may well just be a chemical reaction. But I > really don't see how, even in theory, one can scientifically determine > whether or not an individual is married, or has recently broken a law, or > is president. And marriage and crime and the presidency certainly seem > to be real things with real consequences. Please either explain why > they're not real, or give me some clue as to how one would approach them > scientifically. Or, of course, you could concede that science doesn't > apply to everything. You really don't listen to anything anyone has to say, do you? I'm not going to repeat at length what several other people have posted articles about regarding your position. Frank Adams in <581@mmintl.UUCP> rebutted all your points very well. Where was your answer to HIM? I quite frankly don't have the time nor the desire to reproduce that here. This is really not worth continuing, since Ms. Christy has not listened to a single point made by me or anyone else on this topic. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr