>I question your use of *or* here. Could it not be *and* and *or* as
>well? Why the important stars?
I think this is an "Aristotelian 'or'" -- I think having no pattern and
having a pattern are both exclusive of each other, therefore, "or" and not
"and".
[David McF said...]
>> >It does work better. Unless you insist that planes only appear to fly.
>
>Darn right. Planes only appear to fly. Science says that what we see
>is valid, /is/ the world. So planes fly within the world view of
>science. If you do not accept the scientific premise that what we sense
>corresponds to reality, planes don't fly. But I think everyone (even
>non scientists) accept that one.
Agreed. I have doubts, however, about how well science can "observe" things
on a metaphysical level. Just because logic & science was used to make a
plane fly doesn't mean I'm going to believe either logic or science when
they insist that all motivation, for example, is chemical.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Williams ICQ Address: 1213689 prefect@tricon.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"See my loafers? Former gophers!"
Various Artists: Raising the Tide of Mediocrity for Two Years
http://www.3wave.com/~prefect/