From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Nov 14 2004 - 14:30:28 GMT
On 14 Nov 2004 at 11:22, David Morey wrote:
That's fine, as long as you recognise the gaps, I have a
problem with MSH talking like there are no gaps.
msh says:
I think this not a fair take on my position. I recognize the gaps,
and always have in this discussion. More important, science
recognizes the gaps: the very method of science is to spot a gap and
suggest a reasonable fact-based hypothesis that might fill it, then
test that hypothesis to whatever extent is possible, including the
retrodictive type tests suggested a while back by Jim Ledbury.
What science doesn't do is fill the gaps with non-scientific
entities, in order to have a nice comfortable gapless view of the
world. I appreciate that everyone here is trying to liberate me from
my "little box" of high confidence and no doubt. But the only box I
see, one apparently invisible to DM and others, is one labelled
"Don't know for now."
dm:
Currently science is good on being (SQ) poor on becoming (DQ).
I'm with Newton, looking for an animate reality in matter. It is
certainly present in experience, and remember reality=experience.
msh says:
Agreed. So the thing to do is push science in the DQ direction,
something I've advocated since signing on to this list. Your
constant reference to your 20 years studying the history of science,
and your reminding me that I need to "think harder, read wider" is
ridiculous condescension.
Nevertheless...
Best regards,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching
> David
>
> Quote "a full explanation, I think not".
> Fine, by why plug the gaps with a "god".
>
> Like so much atomist (exclusively logical & scientific) thinking,
> genes are far too convenient / pat an explanation of the detail,
(as
> are the much maligned memes), but the gaps in the detail do not
> invalidate basic evolutionary principles. The gaps may be an
> interesting mystery, but why propose a mystical explanation ?
>
> (Read & Sheldrake are more creative artistically and infintely
> preferable to the convenience of Genesis.)
>
> Ian
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Morey" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 8:19 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching
>
>
>> MSH: After numerous long discussions with
>> various people, discussions wherein it was obvious my point was
>> made, as my final arguments were left unanswered, I was dismayed
to
>> see the same people, a few posts later, talking to someone new
but
>> starting over spewing the same old shit.
>>
>> DM: Or maybe some of us thought we just could not get you up a
>> level despite out efforts. Confidence is not a bad thing, but
>> neither is doubt. Think harder, read wider, are you right, nothing
>> you have said has convinced me and 20 years a student of the
>> history of science must mean it is not ignorance about science
that
>> makes me disagree with you? So I ask, are you really sure you have
>> a grip on your facts? I think people have offered some means to
>> think outside of the box you are in, I agree with Scott, the fact
>> of evolution is a box even I do not claim to see beyond, but
random
>> mutations plus natural selection, its a mechanism that must occur,
>> but a full explanation, I think not. Deeper better ideas are
>> needed. Here's a few:
>>
>> Try Behe's Darwin's Black Box, Sheldrake's New Science of Life,
>> Koestler's The Case of the Midwife Toad, J Narby's The Cosmic
>> Serpent, Geoffrey Read's The Coherent Universe, Woolfson's Life
>> Without Genes
>> -all with good science backgrounds- just for starters.
>>
>> NB I am not keen either or any or the current design theories,
most
>> are worst than RM plus NS. Probably Read & Sheldrake offer the
most
>> interesting long term prospects.
>>
>> DM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>> Mail Archives:
>> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>>
>> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD
Queries
> - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 Nov 14 2004 - 14:32:39 GMT