You are suggesting that a hypotheses is flawed in concept? What is wood?
do i have to start by saying Wood is not plastic, or concrete or the
moon? this is a near infinate progression (as the universe is finite). (Sodom)
List,
I am not saying that a hypothesis is a flawed concept. I am saying that
science operates by negative proof...and am showing the results of this on
the scientist. I am saying that all statistics--so called "facts",
objective "proofs"...all scientific *surities* (which are based on external
verification as opposed to internal varification), all scientific endeavor
centers around a concept similar to the null hypothesis. It begins with the
paradoxical idea: Two things are perfectly related and I know that I am
wrong to a degree of error.
Saying "Wood is not plastic" misses the horror of what I'm
implying...science must always operate at the most fundamental level saying
"wood is not wood"; or rather, there is a 100% probablility that wood IS
wood but 'I', the scientist, am wrong to a degree of chance. The method is
not flawed, like a negative proof is not flawed; but, the results are
preordained...'I' will find myself to be wrong if I prove that wood IS wood
and that I am wrong if I prove wood is NOT wood--the result is that the
scientist is WRONG, no matter what.
The personal cost is that all observations must be based on external
criteria...the individual loses any inherent quality...the individual in
turn is judged on external criteria. S/he is evaluated on objective
performance--becomes "worth" something in terms of social
performance...becomes without internal "value" (cannot evaluate him/herself
without an external representation).
While the external manifestation of the spirit of an individual is also
perfect, it is not pure. It is averaged toward the mean...it is
*compromised*. The individual becomes a slave to his/her collegues, peers,
heroes. Must be redeemed through a process of trial-and-error (becomes
reprobate). Suffers group Karma and must "die to be reborn"...ceases to
exist as an individual and becomes a mouthpiece for the group ideal.
Like I said about the tree and the fire: The scientist is the fire, he is
burned up in his attempts to prove the existence of the tree.
Brett
At 11:08 AM 10/18/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Brett Lane Robertson wrote:
>>
>> Brett,
>>
>
>>
>> Here Sodom is destroying religion in order to make science sound more
>> important even though he says that they are not remotely similar. So why do
>> you compare them, if they are not similar?
>
>
>Brett, You are beginning to really confuse me. I am not comparing
>science to religion except in answer to the previous post. I am not
>trying to destroy religion, I have no such desire. I am simply stating
>thast we know who wrote what, historicaly and scientifically. We know
>humans create to explain what they can't understand - even Chardin is
>claiming that scientists do this. If scientists do this without trying,
>don't you think religions people might do it too? And talk about no peer
>review, who can review "divine" inspiration?
>
>They are very different things with different goals.
>
>Basically your second paragraph is also flawed:
>>I think that a scientific understanding must begin with the idea that there
>> is nothing known (about an object) and then it must *disprove* itself.
>
>You are suggesting that a hypotheses is flawed in concept? What is wood?
>do i have to start by saying Wood is not plastic, or concrete or the
>moon? this is a near infinate progression (as the universe is finite).
>By you reasoning, we cannot even have a periodic table of elements. I
>suppose in your universe we can write with our fingers in the sand, all
>the metaphysical things we want to believe, and call this the best we
>can so.
>
>we KNOW that the early religions all worshiped Earth Processes? the
>rain, the wind, the snow the water etc... We know that when any people
>started to understand why certain things happened, they ditched the gods
>that surrounded the mystery of the process. To say that faith is like a
>tree, HAH, more like a weed. This is easy enough to show as in - Why
>have no two groups seperated by ocean, or non traversable space never
>came up with the same religion. NOT ONCE. such a small percentage of the
>world was in the middle east at the time judiasm began - seems the
>Chinsese, or native americans, or Natitive Australians were created by
>other gods huh? Those religions are even older that Judiasm, especially
>Native Australians who have had a similar religion for well over 10,000
>years. They still perform the same dances seen on cave wall carvings!
>Religion is made up to eleviate fear, and believes becasue it is taught
>as real. Science is NOT created by anyone. It could care less whether
>the results are frightning or not. It has no preference for the results.
>Some scientists do, but science places no value on any result.
>
>The last paragraph can quickly be summed up in one sentence. You think
>that - Religion does as well as science at describing human nature. I
>would say that up until recently that was the case. Now of course it is
>not. It's teachings about sex, freedom, reproduction, and the like are
>causing much more trouble than good. The number one world problem right
>now is population control. unfortunately, almost all religions preach -
>make lots of kids. This very idea is stifling the entire planet. There
>are so many laws regading saying "God" in this country that I cannot go
>to court, spent money, get a government job, pledge allegience to my
>country, without first acknowledging the Christian god. Brett, here is
>one for you. Which profession has the highest incitence of sexual child
>abuse? THE PRIESTHOOD!
>
>Science does not aim to destroy anything. This is up to people
>themselves. If they find that knowledge reduces their faith, then good
>for them, if not, then good for them too. I think that you must group
>science with religion shows that you are unable to think at the level
>needed. Fear is keeping you from seeing science as a descriptive entity
>only, and as a descriptive entity, it can describe religion easily.
>
>Sodom
>I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT, AND IT WAS FLOURESCENT
>
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Everyone must row with the oars he has.
English proverb