File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_1999/anarchy-list.9905, message 440


Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 20:10:44 +0200
From: Manfred Schmidtke <m.schmidtke-AT-ebe-online.de>
Subject: Re: Tornado and Littleton


mokey wrote:

>Particle accelerators do not prove anything - no experimental data does,
>that's what I'm arguing for.  But physics makes predictions which
>experiments in particle accelerators seem to bear out.  I agree, the things
>cost a bundle, but that's hardly an argument for ending science.  Science
>is useful, and so I think we should spend money on it.  

yes, but only a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. down here on this
planet, science has to be financed by states or corporations. hmmm... i
wonder in whose interests scientists act?

>Weapons, on the
>other hand, are extremely harmful, and maybe we should be giving out about
>them first.

another 50 years, and particle accelerators will be used as weapons. wanna
bet?

>>true, but there are still convincing and less convincing theories out
>>there. darwins theory of evolution, for example, is well supported by lots
>>of interesting facts.
>
>Why the insistence on factual evidence?  Why western rationality?  Why the
>arbitrary mention of "interest."? 

i can't help, i'm just a rational-thinking, narrow-minded twit. if i can
see, hear, smell, taste or feel it, then it's "proven". i observe and try
to understand. that's it.

there's nothing wrong with your philosophy, though. it's just a bit
dangerous: you might claim that black is white and get yourself killed on
the nearest zebra crossing.

>The theories of, for example, Jesus the
>so called Christ, are supported by lots of interesting stories, which
>people in bygone years thought to be facts.

those stories aren't very convincing. anyway, religion is a good example:
there are many people who believe in god just because it is written in the
bible. that's silly, as we will probably agree. but then there are people
who *feel* that god exists, and that's perfectly alright in my opinion.
but even without that personal experience, i could agree with them if "god"
would be a logical concept. but until now, nobody was able to explain to me
why god seems to think that it is great fun when children are starving.

i can't believe in something i don't understand.
 
>Facts are contingent, and
>depend completely upon the framework which we build around them. 

there's just one reality, thus there are unchangeable facts.
but since the human brain is a system which observes reality, the
perception of reality is subjective. now, if a group of people agree that
they have the same perception of reality, then their observations become a
fact for them. 

but if

>The theories of, for example, Jesus the
>so called Christ, are supported by lots of interesting stories, which
>people in bygone years thought to be facts.

then it isn't a fact for *me*, because my perception of reality is
different. on the other hand, if we would agree that people don't behave
randomly (which, i think, most people would agree), then it becomes a fact
that quantum theory is silly.

at least i think so, but maybe i'm too tired to give a complete analysis of
reality at the moment ;-)

>Quantum theory is stupid?  Again I must ask why?  I think it's quite
>fascinating.  Even if it is complete rubbish, it is damn poetic stuff, far
>more interesting than dull and dry Newtonian mechanics.

if complex systems behave randomly (and the human brain is the most complex
system known in nature), then we are all just random generators - just like
the guy said who wrote the original post.

now, i know that i'm not a random generator. for everything i do, i have a
reason. this reason can get a bit strange after the third beer, but it is
still there. i have never met a person who behaves randomly, nor do i know
anyone who has met a random-generator-person. i have never observed that
something happens without something else causing it.

i can't believe in something i don't understand.

>Question everything.  But don't do it just for the hell of it, like the
>"fuck the system" aolers. 

"fuck the system" is a good starting point.

anyway, i won't believe something just because an authority wrote it down.
it doesn't matter if it's written in the bible or in a book about physics.
i prefer to think.

mani


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005