Re: [tuning] Digest Number 2121

And there was me thinking it was a systematic body of provable, repeatable
relationships between quantifiable properties of material objects.

Tell me, which holy books have you been reading lately...

Next, we'll be told that fossils were Divine fiction.

> From: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: 23 Jun 2002 09:08:24 -0000
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Digest Number 2121
>
> Science is a religion. It is the religion based on the myth of analysis.

Hello Mark!

you seem to have the idea that religion is fundamentalism. Seems a rather limited view
Science is always right? It all depends who is doing it and for what purpose.
Is the Big Bang repeatable?
the same condition are never the same. the water is not the same water nor are we in the same
place in the universe.
What is consciousness?
Are GMO good and safe, the scientist says that pollen will not go a mile down the road while it
circles the globe. This is science, it is never separate from politics or money.
You assume that religion is in books
I don't read holy books because these are for the most part books of ethics having nothing to do
with religion. the bible has more statements about now having sex with animals (I guess the
followers needed to be told this ) than any cosmological syntax.
Science applied to music has ran across a brick wall. It just won't behave and the rationalist
can stand it so they would rather impose their "interaction of formal relations" and drive those
of their tribe to more furtive ground than admit science limitations. It works well with Beethoven
but fails with Tchaikovsky (and most people prefer the latter)
What i am talking about is science's limit not that it hasn't produced good result. When it is
believed it can be applied to everything and is infallible it becomes indistinguishable from a
religion.

Mark Gould wrote:

> And there was me thinking it was a systematic body of provable, repeatable
> relationships between quantifiable properties of material objects.
>
> Tell me, which holy books have you been reading lately...
>
> Next, we'll be told that fossils were Divine fiction.
>
> > From: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: 23 Jun 2002 09:08:24 -0000
> > To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [tuning] Digest Number 2121
> >
> > Science is a religion. It is the religion based on the myth of analysis.
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Kraig Grady:
> > > Science is a religion. It is the religion based on the myth of
analysis.
> >

No. That goes too far. The difference between science and most (but
not all) religion is that in science _all_ ideas are fair game. But
scientists are human, and many individuals and sometimes large groups
get stuck in a rut for a long time, but science as a whole and science
as a method is all about recognising and avoiding the many ways that
we fool ourselves, and never stays stuck for very long.

Mark Gould:
> > And there was me thinking it was a systematic body of provable,
repeatable
> > relationships between quantifiable properties of material objects.

This goes too far in the other direction. Substitute for "provable",
"potentially disprovable but not yet disproved".

Kraig Grady:
> What i am talking about is science's limit not that it hasn't
produced good result. When it is
> believed it can be applied to everything and is infallible it
becomes indistinguishable from a
> religion.

I agree with that.