Re: virus: Re:[Fwd: Re: memes at the meme site]
Nathaniel Hall (natehall@lgcy.com)
Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:50:55 -0600
Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> > Nathaniel Hall[SMTP:natehall@lgcy.com] wrote:
> >
> > Richard Brodie wrote:
> > >
> > > The main blind spot is that it is difficult for the scientist to
> > experience
> > > mysticism and thus study it. This tends to make scientists believe
> > they are
> > > lone, rational minds perceiving an objective reality. It is hard for
> > one
> > > with such an operating mode to break out of its box.
> > >
> > Its hardly a blind spot to see something which is'nt there. One can
> > make up any bogus belief one wants to but science demands proof!
> > The Nateman
> >
> Does science say, if you can't prove it, you can't use it,
> or is that scientism I'm thinking of?
>
> Robin
If something is by is very nature undetecable by any means then of
course it's useless. Science has already discovered some things which
border on the undetectable. Consider the neutrino. If I had a layer of
lead a light year thick it can still pass through all that as if
nothing was there. Yet we have discovered it all the same. For
something "limited" with "blind spots" don't you think its pretty
amazing what science has already discovered?