On Dec 9, 2007, at 1:45 AM, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
> Christopher Menzel wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 2007, at 6:59 AM, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation
>>>
>>> In this account, there is no 'collapse', so its a hard stretch to
>>> posit that consciousness causes or results from it.
>>>
>>> luckily we can all have our favourite choice of science to justify
>>> our views of the world
>>>
>>
>> So, let's see, we have our worldview and then we choose the science
>> that fits. Great! I choose Young Earth Creationism. Man, that was
>> easy!
>>
> provided that YEC is science...  (01) 
Hey, who's to say? :-)  (02)
I was actually only half-serious (probably should have added a 
smiley), but I do read things in this forum occasionally that sound 
dangerously like the "postmodernist" thesis that modern physics is no 
more true that Aristotelian physics, that science is just another 
"grand narrative" aimed to keep the powerful in power, that the 
scientific method is no better or worse a "way of knowing" than, say, 
casting lots or consulting the Book of Mormon, etc etc. Pernicious 
nonsense, that.  (03)
-chris  (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  (05)