------=_NextPart_000_0002_01BCD672.63F2BEC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com>
To: virus@lucifer.com <virus@lucifer.com>
Date: Friday, October 10, 1997 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: virus: Free thought and control
Marie Foster wrote:=20
chardin wrote:=20
> Experimentation has shown that when we have a theory which is not=20
> correct and we receive new information, the new information is =
seldom correcting at all, but we=20
> tend to "elaborate" on an already incorrect theory. Thus, some=20
> scientific theories become more and more bizarre as new =
information=20
> is added. This is discussed at some length in Paul Watzlawick's =
book=20
> "How Real is Real." I find this very interesting as I see some=20
> theories in science (which I think to be incorrect) being =
elaborated=20
> on more and more. The elaboration does not convince me that they =
are=20
> right by any means, though the presentors think it should. Hardin =
> >=20
=20
I think a good example of this is the picture we get of early man =
based=20
on the fossil record. The idea of evolution (change) is sound. But =
the=20
conclusions that we evolved from... A B or C strikes me as amusing. =
The=20
problem is that there are only some places on earth where fossils =
tend=20
to be found due to weather, geography, etc. Yet I find scraps of=20
assumptions in many social science texts that seem to arrive at =
views=20
about humans based on these very imcomplete records.=20
=20
Perhaps that time traveling alien might find our ancient fathers to =
be=20
something other than than a "Naked Ape"... with all the baggage that =
entails.=20
=20
I am not trying to sway anyone here. Just that this is only one =
example=20
of how science *might* lead us astray.=20
=20
sway astray... I like the sound of that=20
=20
Marie
=20
Sway astray is good, but the example could be better. Genetically =
we are about 95% the same as the Chimpanzee, we are amost as close to =
the other great apes (Bonobo, Gorilla, Orangatan) These species also =
demonstrate similarities in social areas, emotional areas and =
intellectual areas. An excellent book on our relationship with the other =
great apes is "Demonic Males - Apes and the Origins of Human Violence". =
The book is effectivly paleo-anthropology, but excellent reading for the =
free thinker.=20
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=3D0395877431/8170-9506757-983761=20
This link will take you amazon.com, there are some reviews there.=20
Sodom=20
Another example. Do you know the percentage of DNA we share with a =
mouse? How about a cricket? This percentage of DNA thing does add fuel =
to the fire. It also does not explain the differences between us and =
apes. I can not remember all the physical differences and perhaps I =
will look them up. The biggest difference between us and apes is that =
we have a layer of subcutaneous fat. This is more similar to sea =
mamals. =20
Actually, I do believe we came from some primate. The specifics I do =
not believe have been proved in any real way.
(I have a list of books from this list that is approaching 20. However, =
I will add your suggestion to my list....)
Marie
=20
=20
=20
------=_NextPart_000_0002_01BCD672.63F2BEC0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
-----Original =
Message-----
From:=20
Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com>
To: virus@lucifer.com=20
<virus@lucifer.com>
Date: Friday, October 10, 1997 3:25=20
PM
Subject: Re: virus: Free thought and=20
control
chardin wrote:=20Sway astray is good, but the = example could be=20 better. Genetically we are about 95% the same as the Chimpanzee, we are = amost as=20 close to the other great apes (Bonobo, Gorilla, Orangatan) These species = also=20 demonstrate similarities in social areas, emotional areas and = intellectual=20 areas. An excellent book on our relationship with the other great apes = is=20 "Demonic Males - Apes and the Origins of Human Violence". The = book is=20 effectivly paleo-anthropology, but excellent reading for the free = thinker.=20> Experimentation has shown that when we have a theory which = is not=20
> correct and we receive new information, the new = information=20 is seldom correcting at all, but we
> tend to=20 "elaborate" on an already incorrect theory. Thus, = some=20
> scientific theories become more and more bizarre as new = information=20
> is added. This is discussed at some = length in=20 Paul Watzlawick's book
> "How Real is = Real." I=20 find this very interesting as I see some
> theories in = science (which=20 I think to be incorrect) being elaborated
> on more and = more. =20 The elaboration does not convince me that they are
> right by = any=20 means, though the presentors think it should. Hardin
> = >=20I think a good example of this is the picture we get of early man = based=20
on the fossil record. The idea of evolution (change) is=20 sound. But the
conclusions that we evolved from... A B or = C=20 strikes me as amusing. The
problem is that there are only = some=20 places on earth where fossils tend
to be found due to weather,=20 geography, etc. Yet I find scraps of
assumptions in many = social=20 science texts that seem to arrive at views
about humans based on = these=20 very imcomplete records.=20Perhaps that time traveling alien might find our ancient fathers = to be=20
something other than than a "Naked Ape"... with all = the=20 baggage that
entails.=20I am not trying to sway anyone here. Just that this is only = one=20 example
of how science *might* lead us astray.=20sway astray... I like the sound of that=20
Marie
This link will take you amazon.com, there are some reviews there.=20
Sodom
Another example. Do you know the percentage of DNA = we=20 share with a mouse? How about a cricket? This percentage of = DNA=20 thing does add fuel to the fire. It also does not explain the = differences=20 between us and apes. I can not remember all the physical = differences and=20 perhaps I will look them up. The biggest difference between us and = apes is=20 that we have a layer of subcutaneous fat. This is more similar to = sea=20 mamals.
Actually, I do believe we came from some primate. = The=20 specifics I do not believe have been proved in any real way.
(I have a list of books from this list that is = approaching=20 20. However, I will add your suggestion to my list....)
Marie
------=_NextPart_000_0002_01BCD672.63F2BEC0--