[at-l] Voodoo Science.

[ats138@psu.edu (Adam Szczepanski)]

Spirituality in science?  or humility?

pick your science:

Einstein:  in the new physics, there is no place for both field and matter,
because field is the only reality

Willis Jager: there aren't two kinds of laws: matter and mind.  rather,
there is a single continuous law for both matter and mind.  matter is the
domain of space in which the field is extremely dense

De Chardin: concretely speaking, there is no matter and spirit - there is
only matter becoming spirit.

Stephen Hawking: what is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes
a universe for them to describe?

Bhagavad Gita: Behind the manifest and unmanifest there is an existence
that is eternal and changeless.  This existence is not dissolved in the
general cosmic dissolution.  Fools pass blindly by it, and of its majesty
know nothing.  It is nearer than knowing...

and my favorite, from the Scientific Method-man himself, Francis Bacon: the
subtlety of nature is far beyond that of sense or of the understanding; so
that the specious meditations, speculations, and theories of mankind are
but a kind of insanity, only there is no one to stand by and observe it.

Food for thought in a day and age where science and technology are viewed
as the (w)holy grail of the modern world.

Adam the pseudo-neo-Luddite




At 11:14 AM 12/10/02 -0500, Steve Adams wrote:
>William, Grey Owl,
>
>Reference your posts, most recently that of William the Turtle, dated
>12-10-02.
>
>"Science often speakes (sic) before it has all the facts.  Or before it can
>have all the facts ..."   And, "Sometimes science does not understand why X
>works with Y and not with Z and they may lay it too the wrong reason ..."
>
>The Scientific Method is probably essential.  Its rigor tends to keep the
>pursuit of knowledge honest and efficient, over the long run.  Its
>methodology considers what is known and makes projections using accepted
>concepts.
>
>The Scientific Method, in operation, doesn't acknowledge that we will know
>more tomorrow; new data will be available and new concepts will have
>emerged.  All that is speculative.  Speculation doesn't withstand the rigor
>of the Scientific Method very well.  It is not much used, except to guide
>where to look for "larger" answers.
>
>An inherent limitation of the Scientific Method is currently apparent, I
>believe, by the recent revelation/acceptance, that "Junk DNA" may actually
>have a purpose.  What scientific arrogance; if science doesn't understand
>it, it's junk.
>
>Steve
>
>P.S.  Now, I'm off to raid the neighbor's chicken coop.
>
>["(W)e should ... run off and rub ourselves with chicken s**t and feather so
>that we can fly ..."  I didn't misread that, did I?]
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>_______________________________________________
> From the AT-L mailing list         est. 1995
>Need help?  http://www.at-l.org
>Archives: http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/
>Change your options or unsubscribe:
>http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>
>Stay on topic!