From: Party of Citizens (citizens@vcn.bc.ca)
Date: Sat Jul 28 2001 - 14:06:59 MDT
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, J. R. Molloy wrote:
> From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
> > > Or, to test if thinking is incorrect, look at its results.
> > > Incorrect thinking
> > > is that which doesn't work. Come to think of it, we already have
> > > a system that
> > > can identify incorrect thinking... it's called science.
> >
> > This sounds good, but even systems have to be interpreted by people. Has
> > cryonics produced results? Has nanotech produced results? Has life
> > extension produced results? Someone has to interpret the value of potential
> > results. Even these scientific technologies are controversial with many
> > scientists claiming that they do not and never will produce results. There
> > will always be disagreements. I still fear one parson's science being
> > forced onto others. There is no one-true-science any more than there is
> > one-true-religion
>
> Yes, I think science has produced magnificent results. I don't believe in the
> concept of "one person's science" because AFAIK there's only one scientific
> methodology, and it relies on rigor and reason.
> To the extent any group (including extropians) dismisses science, they become
> susceptible to incorrect thinking, irrational (though popular) beliefs, and
> cult memes that doom them to eventual failure. I don't fear a system that
> accurately identifies incorrect thinking. I welcome it, and I applaud its
> successful results. As for religion, the reason there is no
> "one-true-religion" is that they are all untrue.
If you push science to its limits as Asimov did with that statement I
quoted earlier, then you see that it cannot give you all truth without a
"leap of faith". So the scientific approach to seeking all truth is
fallible, it errs, it contains untruth. Hence the "leap of faith" above
and beyond science for those who CHOOSE to make it. It is a choice. Then
when you bring it back to empirical reality you get to see what works
result from this faith. But this "theory of transcendence" in its basic
form is found all over the world, east and west. In Charles Correa's book,
"The New Landscape" you will see the "mandala" of a city plan from ancient
India. The first order interface of physical and metaphysical. Correa was
Chief Architect of New Bombay (Navi Mumbai).
Would you say all religions are equally untrue? How then do you
established which is more or less untrue?
POC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:14 MST