RE: MD acausal/ psuedo-science / wonder

From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Sun Dec 08 2002 - 01:11:54 GMT

  • Next message: Erin N.: "RE: MD acausal"

    >erin:
    >> This reminds me of Scott saying there would be
    >> four Buddhist monks channg a light bulb.
    >>
    >> Okay say
    >> 1. all causal relationships (Glenn?)
    >> 2. all acausal relationships (astrologer)
    >> 3. both causal and acausal (Jung)(you?)
    >> 4. neither (you?)
    >>
    >
    >Steve:
    >
    >On 2., I disagree that the astrologer deals in acausality. They think in
    >terms of cause and effect just like scientists, but the scientist puts his
    >causal rules to the test of experimentation, the astrologer supports his
    >causal rules with anecdotal evidence (i.e. coincidences). Which method is
    >of higher quality?

    Well I put it as acausal because something way
    out there in the universe is supposedly affecting
    my behavior. Acausality is not the opposite of causality.
    erin

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 08 2002 - 01:05:26 GMT