>Is "objective" reality consensual or is it actually an agreed upon
>reality by observation of natural laws separate from the Phenomena?
According to "normal science", the kind the NSF funds, this question
is foolish. This is not a question scientists normally ask, except
after a couple of beers or within secret heretical covens.
>Could it be that "subjective" and "Objective" interpenetrate with one
>another by some unobservable mechanism not known or understood at this
>time?
Again, this question is beyond the pale in science. It is not a question
that is answerable by experiment. It is assumed that no such relationship
exists.
>Are all phenomena that are not classified or provable by
>scientific methodology non-existant because of lack of proof or
>evidence?
Who knows? Such phenomena aren't classifiable or provable.
>These are questions that have need for an answer
Search elsewhere, Robert, science doesn't have the answers.
>Experimentation is the only way we can observe and classify
>unknowns until they become the known in science.
I agree with that entirely.
"known in science" sounds like "reborn in Christ", to me.
Missionaries tried to convert or destroy wayward heathens
Scientists try to convery or destroy wayward ideas.
WE ARE BORG
PREPARE TO BE ASSIMILATED
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE
;-)
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------