OT Funeral readings

And the bit in the "Loosening/transcending the concept of "belief""
section that basically says what I've been trying to say for a while -
that 'belief in science' has replaced 'belief in religion' and that
they are both driven by the same impulse.

Phil.

 

I'm working! I'm waiting for people to reply to phone calls so I can
set up the next round of research visits. I'm simply making creative
use of down time.

Physically plugging it in or doing technical telling it what to do
gubbins?

 

I don't think he is talking about science as 'the scientific method' -
more the 'science as God' attitude.

In the part than LN didn't quote he says:

 

Another one that looks like English, but doesn't quite make it...

Why can't these word-manglers just write what they mean in plain
bloody English?[1]

[1] And if it's translated from "furrin" get a better bloody
translator...

 

It's totally outside your utterly logical positivist framework, so that
figures. Trouble is, so are some forms of Art. So no meaning. How about
emotion, or is that a dirty word too?

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest * 2 Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

Oh yes they bloody well are.

If science doesn't fully understand a phenomenon it sets about through
research and testing to to discover a repeatable, verifiable solution
to the unknowns within that phenomenon. Religion does not.

 

The man was a genius.

--
Veggie Dave
UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08
IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com
POST PRODUCTION http://www.iq18films.co.uk
Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me

 

Speaking for me, I totally get art. From Primitive to Post Modern and
everything in between. I love it all. My current penchant is for Coptic,
which, although religious in origin, does not require a) religion or b)
transcendence to thoroughly enjoy.

 

nobody fully understands any phenomena. we just have hypotheses, which are
more or less testable and more or less supported by empirical evidence.

the more you learn, the more you realise there is yet to learn.

 

I dunno, at times his use of hyperbolic adjectives can make him seem
like a pupil of HP Lovecraft.

 

Alex and Phil in agreement..

Phil

 

Representational though innit?
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest * 2 Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

"no matter how honest scientists think they are, they are still
influenced by various unconscious assumptions that prevent them from
attaining true objectivity."

<Contemplates firing up Athens for the Journal of Religion and
Science.>

 

So do you trust, believe, have faith in the process of new discovery
through science?

See my point above about tabloid readers and science as an amorphous
blob in a lab coat.

It seems to me that where they are is where you are in relation to
religious/metaphysics/philosophy stuff.

 

There *are* several sections to it (of variable buzzwordness and
comprehensibility).

Some are even thought-provoking.

Well quite. An expert is identified as someone who thinks that their
speciality is stuff that is blatantly obvious.

I mean - I can't understand why everyone can't do networks. It not like
it's difficult or complicated!

Phil.

 

Largely - yes. On the first section anyway..

Phil.

 

you've just confused "science" with "scientist" again.

 

Revolting. I'd rather have a bar of Dairy Milk.

 

Reduces their chance of Alzheimers for one.. Oh - and it teaches them
(hopefully) that the world isn't necessarily as they thought it was[1].

Phil.

[1] And even the rationalists (*especially* the quantum physics
types[2]) will admit that the world isn't necessarily as they think it
is. And that's leaving out the metaphysics..
[2] Who may or may not count as rationalists depending on whether they
are being observed or not.

 

*ugh*

"darsy in 'agrees with Nina and disagrees with Ogden' shocker".