Re: virus: Fact
Eric Boyd (6ceb3@qlink.queensu.ca)
Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:38:25 -0500
Darkstar wrote:
> Define fact. That's hard to do isn't it? Since what I've seen tells me
> that fact is what is, currently anyway. The funny thing is, most *facts*
> are more unstable than the variables people put them up against. The
> variable stay constant to their nature while facts flip flop around like a
> fish out of water trying to make it back. Few of them ever do.
> And as for quasi-sciences, weren't healers (pre-docter) once considered
> witches or wizrds, in league with evil? Is it that we fear it's flopping
> around, or that it might one day make it back to water? The answer or the
> question, which is it?
To me "fact" seems hopelessly tied up with "truth", and as such /should/
be considered just as relative. Since most people don't consider
"facts" relative (that is, only /valid/ from a certain observers
framework) our legal system gets into huge troubles. "A fact" is
nothing more than an ity-bity thought prison.[1] Transcend them.
ERiC
[1] Gosh I like this "thought-prison" meme. Thanks, Tony!