clipka wrote:
> If a scientist claims that *everything* is (or will eventually become)
> explicable by science and anyone not acknowledging this is mislead by
> superstition, then he's just as fundamentalist as a christian claiming that
> *everything* is explained in the Bible and anyone not acknowledging this is
> mislead by Satan, or a conspirationist claiming that *everything* is the work
> of The Powers That Be and anyone not acknowledging this is mislead by the very
> same.
> 

Hmm. How about... Nothing so far has **ever** been, **actually** 
explained by the supernatural, which is to say, asserting, "Well, 
something had to be, so why not Pixies?", is not an "explanation", its a 
refusal to either look for an answer, or admit you don't know one. By 
the same token, **everything** we do have an answer for **has been** 
explained by science, just not always in the way, or to the 
satisfaction, of those that hate the resulting answer. i.e, things like 
mind/consciousness, etc., where "emergent property" isn't good enough 
for them, since denying "special cause", also denies, "special 
existence". But, when someone in science says, "science can answer 
that", then mean, "because none of the other BS things people have come 
up with provide anything that does, or which does so in a way that 
proves useful at making anything from the result, or making 'correct' 
predictions." This doesn't mean that, asked a direct question of, "Well, 
what is the answer then.", its not going to be, "I don't know."

This differs from religions. It differs in a very specific way. To 
religion, "I don't know.", is ***always*** an invalid answer, and the 
*correct* one is always some variation of, "That is just how it is.", 
"Because god wants it that way.", or, "Its too mysterious to bother 
figuring out." No scientist will ever say, "We can't know.", or, when 
given something that isn't explained yet, will resort to, "Just because, 
or because of some BS I just made up."

If you have a conflict with this, then all you have to manage is to 
explain anything that provides knowledge about the world, which isn't 
testable via *some* sort of scientific examination (even if its, does it 
look like X number of people show what we describe as love), or which, 
when attempting to provide an explanation, goes farther than claiming 
that the things "exists", waffling about what it "is", and can't predict 
*jack* about the thing in question, without using purely circular 
associations, in which you predict A, because of B, which is happening 
because of A, which you **still** haven't correctly explained, or 
predicted in a way that can be said to "always" be a result of B.

Example, seem to remember a case a while back of reading someone who 
figured out that there was a specific "mathematical" scale that defined 
when we hear notes are a) part of the same sequence of music, and b) 
following logically, and where c) failing to follow that pattern made 
them dissonant. The pattern closely matched sounds like speech, animal 
calls, and other things that exist in nature, where each shift in 
frequency fell in that range, and thus provided us with "predictability" 
of how many things there where, what they where doing, and when those 
actions "changed". I.e., we like music because it conforms to patterns 
layed down in the brain to detect "sameness" of objects, distinguish 
between multiple objects, and tell us when something has **changed** 
significantly in our environment, thus disturbing us. Its probably 
**impossible** for any species that has adapted auditory reception and a 
means to react to changed in our environment, to "not" like music.

Is this satisfactory for telling why someone like Bach, and another 
Beethoven? Maybe not, but that is likely in their psychological make up, 
which is also testable, or in difference in their ability to perceive 
such shifts accurately, or even in memory recall, where a specific "set" 
of tonal events link up with a similar tonal pattern, which is 
"associated" in that memory with water falls, or sea shores, or wind, 
etc. Its all quantifiable, unsatisfactory, if all you want is to 
"poetic" and "philosophical" gibberish explanations, and simply **not** 
what people asking the question ***want*** to hear as an answer.

But, that is the point. Religions, in what ever form, are about what 
people *want* to be true. Science is supposed to be about what **is** 
true. (Well, at least as long as you don't hire some semi-fruitloop, 
like Francis Collins to run the NIH, but that is a side issue.)

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message