Science, IMHO, is a (fluid) body of knowledge derrived from a specific
methodology.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Ascmjk@aol.com
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 3:49 PM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD Glenn, Platt, Ant and the creation of patterns
In a message dated 3/2/01 11:36:59 AM Central Standard Time,
mjorgensen@vpdinc.com writes:
Imagine that some time in the future we discover that what we call
"light"
is really consciousness and that our definition of what constitutes a
being
changes to include what we now call planets and stars. Or we discover
that
what we now describe as objects are actually entities that exist on
different plains due to their density and vibration levels. I agree
that
both of these propositions sound crazy today, because both are way
outside
of science and what we now consider a true picture of reality.
JON:
Excuse me for jumping in, but the above quote feels correct to me. Science
is
ultimately a series of working labels of what we know about reality, is it
not? As new evidence comes in, we simply change the labels....right?
Gravity is just another working label, is it not? Perhaps I should put an
emphasis on *working* label. It enables us to formulate various
calculations
and make things work in certain ways, numbers correspond, we can send
satellites to Jupiter, etc.
The point seems to be, even though we find out how something works (such
as
gravity), it may work for reasons we don't know about. Yet.
Jon
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:09 BST