Californian busybody telling Canada about cars

Again, thank you for making my point. You are not about to accept
science as fallible, while I am not about to accept it as infallible.
Your arguments balanced against mine bear this out.

As for a mechanic erring in a diagnosis of a mechanical problem with
my car being different from an error in the past by science; just as
the next mechanic is open to making the same or other error, so too is
science not restricted by errors of the past in it's function and
ability to err in the future.

When scientists (Einstein, Carl Sagan, et al) using scientific
principle to reach answers and understanding, many years later openly
admit that their science was flawed because there were principles at
work which were neither recognized not understood, and there for they
were biased in their conclusions and "answers" arrived at by
scientific principles of investigation; then I say your science is
open to error.

And why do you suppose that so many scientists are stepping forward
and acknowledging that they have come to believe in the Hand of God in
Creation? This was once the demarcation between science and religion.
Science claimed proof, and religion claimed faith. Now science
acknowledges faith, and religion has begun to acknowledge science.

Note that I do not reject science, nor the scientific principles of
investigation. What I reject is the blind acceptance that science is
infallible, and that the adherents of science must therefore be always
correct. Human bias has often effected the result of investigation
just as it has in my personal line of work, law enforcement.

I see at this moment that one aspect of science is at my side to prove
my beliefs. My dog is hungry and I must feed her else she will whine
all night long. And quite possible, my failure to feed her may result
in my waking up dead.

On 22 Nov 2004 20:05:35 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:

>You can accept science as a method to answering questions, or you can
>believe in the fates. Truth is relative, science doesn't find "The Truth."
>It is a practice, and a method of inquiry. If you fail to accept it, you
>relegate your life to the darkness and frustration of never understanding
>what can be understood. I do not say that there is not value to religion and
>other ways of understanding, but I think the scientific domain, the domain
>of what is here and can be investigated is separate from the ethereal.
>
>You could argue that there are things outside of human control and
>understanding i.e. God, the fortunes etc.
>
>So, the question becomes, is climate change the domain of science or
>mysticism?
>
>If climate change is the domain of science, you must give a response to the
>science. You must say something like, X hasn't been taken into account or Y
>is an unknown quantity. The debate must occur there, and will only have
>value there. You simply say that scientists have made mistakes in the past.
>This is *not* a valid critic of the problem at hand. Just because a mechanic
>misdiagnosed a problem with a car in the past is not any indication that
>future diagnoses will be faulty. If you say science is fallible, you either
>do not understand what science is, or you believe things outside of the
>corporeal world have influence upon it. Again, you have to state that the
>science regarding climate change is incomplete or faulty, and *give evidence
>to support the claim.*
>
>Failing a scientific response, two options remain for you. Mysticism, or you
>could say, "I don't know very much about the situation, so I can't come to
>an informed decision."
>
>Is the science incomplete or is science itself to blame, modernity or
>mysticism? It's your choice.
>
>All the climate change skeptics have moved from a position of, "humans have
>no impact," to arguing about the degree of impact. Even the most rosy of
>predictions put forth by the coal industry show significant change. No
>serious person is talking about apocalyptic global warming in the next 100
>years either. There is a simple insurance argument to be made - A little
>work now so things don't get too out of hand in the future. Or, wait till
>things are really bad and incur massive costs then.
>
>Incidentally,
>I think all communicative exchanges are productive. In this, I got to learn
>something about you. Learning about people interests me greatly.
>
>
>"Spike" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Note that you said "properly applied science". That implies that
>> science can be IMproperly applied. Therefore, the application of said
>> science as THE TRUTH, can be false.
>>
>> Too often, people have been lead to believe that science is
>> infallible. How often have we heard some postulation espoused by
>> scientists, only to have them reverse themselves later. Even
>> Einstein's "perfect" equation is now being questioned. And (what a
>> time to draw a blank) even the mathematician (the one in the
>> wheelchair using a voice synthesizer) stated that some of his work was
>> no longer valid in light of new discoveries made.
>> As for immortality... that one I have solved. First I shall do as my
>> father does... I have stopped having birthdays based upon the earth
>> calendar year. Neptune is good, Pluto is better. The entire universe
>> rotates, so, basing my birthdays on the time it takes the solar system
>> to revolve around the central axis of the universe is getting there.
>>
>> You say communicative exchanges are never unproductive? Try convincing
>> a religious person that there is no god, there is only science, or
>> vice versa. Try convincing a conservative to accept the liberal point
>> of view or vice versa. Or a tree hugger that logging is a good thing,
>> and vice versa (well, ok. being a tree hugger did get rid of Sonny
>> Bono). Try convincing me that science can make not mistakes.
>>
>> When you have dealt with the loss of your children's lives, the loss
>> of a spouse to mental illness, of fought in a war or served as a
>> police officer where the taking of a life in order to save a life is a
>> good thing.... then apply your science to all things and see if it
>> still fits.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the fishing gear is in the car, the dog is anxious to
>> go..... and I feel the need for speed even at $2.55 a gallon.....
>>
>>
>> On 22 Nov 2004 01:28:59 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Spike" > wrote in message
...
>>>> First you say I have not a clue and that everyone agrees, and then you
>>>> quote a statement from Stanford in which the first line starts out
>>>> with "most" scientists would argue.... You have made my point. Not
>>>> "everyone" agrees with your position. A considerable number of
>>>> climatologic have stated that there have been similar rises and falls
>>>> of temps throughout history and pre-history, just as there have been
>>>> advances and declines of the ice sheet, and periodic reverses of the
>>>> magnetic poles.
>>>> I still say that there is not a con census, which you yourself
>>>> provided documentation of, as to what is going on. Until there is, I
>>>> shall not subscribe to the scare tactics of the liberal academics, nor
>>>> the protestations of corporate greed.
>>>
>>>Heh, that's good. There are some pretty scary people around here on both
>>>sides of the debate. My location and occupation lends me to observing
>>>largly
>>>the greener side of the scary people. A very close friend of mine does
>>>reasearch on climate and so forth, so he's fun to talk to. It's really
>>>scary
>>>to hear some of the things he hears from green folks. The political people
>>>are the worst.
>>>
>>>>You remind me of my sister who,
>>>> after college, knew without a doubt that there was only one way to do
>>>> something, and that's they way she was taught in college.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, there are various groups who have used your science to
>>>> prove: the earth is flat; man has never traveled to the moon; the
>>>> earth is the center of the universe, etc, and I'm talking about today,
>>>> not 900 years ago. Like statistics, science can be bent to serve the
>>>> purpose of the user.
>>>
>>>I'll remind you that science is what proves the earth is round, science
>>>put
>>>men on the moon, science proves there is no center to the universe.
>>>Properly
>>>applied science can only answer questions of fact.
>>>
>>>> So, good luck to you either way. Me... I'm going to live until I die.
>>>> And in 5000 years, not one person will care what I thought or did. And
>>>> that's fine. But while I was here, I enjoyed my Mustangs, my guns, my
>>>> computer, my family, fishing, and everything else.... including this
>>>> non-productive exchange of ideas.
>>>
>>>Well, I plan to live until I die as well. I don't have that immortality
>>>thing worked out yet. But hey, I enjoy my Capri, my computer, my hunting
>>>and
>>>fishing too. Rabbit, pheasant, deer, and salmon, walleye, large mouth
>>>bass -
>>>in order of favorite respectively.
>>>
>>>I don't believe any exchange of ideas is unproductive.
>>>
>>
>> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

I accept science as infallible, not scientists. If one has all information,
(within Newtonian physics, you keep bouncing over to theoretical quantum
theory) and rigorously apply logic, nothing but a correct answer can be
reached. If you were to say, "we don't have all the acquirable information,"
that's a legitimate argument to make, and in keeping with the principles of
the scientific method. If you say, "some information is not acquirable,"
that's mysticism.

What you are saying that we can never know anything because we don't know
everything. I flatly reject that. According to your logic, how can someone
justifiably be convicted of a crime based, not on confession, but on
evidence presented?

If the morals of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can put a man to death, surely,
they can be used to legislate carbon emissions.

How was the fishing?


"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> Again, thank you for making my point. You are not about to accept
> science as fallible, while I am not about to accept it as infallible.
> Your arguments balanced against mine bear this out.
>
> As for a mechanic erring in a diagnosis of a mechanical problem with
> my car being different from an error in the past by science; just as
> the next mechanic is open to making the same or other error, so too is
> science not restricted by errors of the past in it's function and
> ability to err in the future.
>
> When scientists (Einstein, Carl Sagan, et al) using scientific
> principle to reach answers and understanding, many years later openly
> admit that their science was flawed because there were principles at
> work which were neither recognized not understood, and there for they
> were biased in their conclusions and "answers" arrived at by
> scientific principles of investigation; then I say your science is
> open to error.
>
> And why do you suppose that so many scientists are stepping forward
> and acknowledging that they have come to believe in the Hand of God in
> Creation? This was once the demarcation between science and religion.
> Science claimed proof, and religion claimed faith. Now science
> acknowledges faith, and religion has begun to acknowledge science.
>
> Note that I do not reject science, nor the scientific principles of
> investigation. What I reject is the blind acceptance that science is
> infallible, and that the adherents of science must therefore be always
> correct. Human bias has often effected the result of investigation
> just as it has in my personal line of work, law enforcement.
>
> I see at this moment that one aspect of science is at my side to prove
> my beliefs. My dog is hungry and I must feed her else she will whine
> all night long. And quite possible, my failure to feed her may result
> in my waking up dead.
>
> On 22 Nov 2004 20:05:35 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:
>
>>You can accept science as a method to answering questions, or you can
>>believe in the fates. Truth is relative, science doesn't find "The Truth."
>>It is a practice, and a method of inquiry. If you fail to accept it, you
>>relegate your life to the darkness and frustration of never understanding
>>what can be understood. I do not say that there is not value to religion
>>and
>>other ways of understanding, but I think the scientific domain, the domain
>>of what is here and can be investigated is separate from the ethereal.
>>
>>You could argue that there are things outside of human control and
>>understanding i.e. God, the fortunes etc.
>>
>>So, the question becomes, is climate change the domain of science or
>>mysticism?
>>
>>If climate change is the domain of science, you must give a response to
>>the
>>science. You must say something like, X hasn't been taken into account or
>>Y
>>is an unknown quantity. The debate must occur there, and will only have
>>value there. You simply say that scientists have made mistakes in the
>>past.
>>This is *not* a valid critic of the problem at hand. Just because a
>>mechanic
>>misdiagnosed a problem with a car in the past is not any indication that
>>future diagnoses will be faulty. If you say science is fallible, you
>>either
>>do not understand what science is, or you believe things outside of the
>>corporeal world have influence upon it. Again, you have to state that the
>>science regarding climate change is incomplete or faulty, and *give
>>evidence
>>to support the claim.*
>>
>>Failing a scientific response, two options remain for you. Mysticism, or
>>you
>>could say, "I don't know very much about the situation, so I can't come to
>>an informed decision."
>>
>>Is the science incomplete or is science itself to blame, modernity or
>>mysticism? It's your choice.
>>
>>All the climate change skeptics have moved from a position of, "humans
>>have
>>no impact," to arguing about the degree of impact. Even the most rosy of
>>predictions put forth by the coal industry show significant change. No
>>serious person is talking about apocalyptic global warming in the next 100
>>years either. There is a simple insurance argument to be made - A little
>>work now so things don't get too out of hand in the future. Or, wait till
>>things are really bad and incur massive costs then.
>>
>>Incidentally,
>>I think all communicative exchanges are productive. In this, I got to
>>learn
>>something about you. Learning about people interests me greatly.
>>
>>
>>"Spike" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> Note that you said "properly applied science". That implies that
>>> science can be IMproperly applied. Therefore, the application of said
>>> science as THE TRUTH, can be false.
>>>
>>> Too often, people have been lead to believe that science is
>>> infallible. How often have we heard some postulation espoused by
>>> scientists, only to have them reverse themselves later. Even
>>> Einstein's "perfect" equation is now being questioned. And (what a
>>> time to draw a blank) even the mathematician (the one in the
>>> wheelchair using a voice synthesizer) stated that some of his work was
>>> no longer valid in light of new discoveries made.
>>> As for immortality... that one I have solved. First I shall do as my
>>> father does... I have stopped having birthdays based upon the earth
>>> calendar year. Neptune is good, Pluto is better. The entire universe
>>> rotates, so, basing my birthdays on the time it takes the solar system
>>> to revolve around the central axis of the universe is getting there.
>>>
>>> You say communicative exchanges are never unproductive? Try convincing
>>> a religious person that there is no god, there is only science, or
>>> vice versa. Try convincing a conservative to accept the liberal point
>>> of view or vice versa. Or a tree hugger that logging is a good thing,
>>> and vice versa (well, ok. being a tree hugger did get rid of Sonny
>>> Bono). Try convincing me that science can make not mistakes.
>>>
>>> When you have dealt with the loss of your children's lives, the loss
>>> of a spouse to mental illness, of fought in a war or served as a
>>> police officer where the taking of a life in order to save a life is a
>>> good thing.... then apply your science to all things and see if it
>>> still fits.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, the fishing gear is in the car, the dog is anxious to
>>> go..... and I feel the need for speed even at $2.55 a gallon.....
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22 Nov 2004 01:28:59 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Spike" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> First you say I have not a clue and that everyone agrees, and then you
>>>>> quote a statement from Stanford in which the first line starts out
>>>>> with "most" scientists would argue.... You have made my point. Not
>>>>> "everyone" agrees with your position. A considerable number of
>>>>> climatologic have stated that there have been similar rises and falls
>>>>> of temps throughout history and pre-history, just as there have been
>>>>> advances and declines of the ice sheet, and periodic reverses of the
>>>>> magnetic poles.
>>>>> I still say that there is not a con census, which you yourself
>>>>> provided documentation of, as to what is going on. Until there is, I
>>>>> shall not subscribe to the scare tactics of the liberal academics, nor
>>>>> the protestations of corporate greed.
>>>>
>>>>Heh, that's good. There are some pretty scary people around here on both
>>>>sides of the debate. My location and occupation lends me to observing
>>>>largly
>>>>the greener side of the scary people. A very close friend of mine does
>>>>reasearch on climate and so forth, so he's fun to talk to. It's really
>>>>scary
>>>>to hear some of the things he hears from green folks. The political
>>>>people
>>>>are the worst.
>>>>
>>>>>You remind me of my sister who,
>>>>> after college, knew without a doubt that there was only one way to do
>>>>> something, and that's they way she was taught in college.
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, there are various groups who have used your science to
>>>>> prove: the earth is flat; man has never traveled to the moon; the
>>>>> earth is the center of the universe, etc, and I'm talking about today,
>>>>> not 900 years ago. Like statistics, science can be bent to serve the
>>>>> purpose of the user.
>>>>
>>>>I'll remind you that science is what proves the earth is round, science
>>>>put
>>>>men on the moon, science proves there is no center to the universe.
>>>>Properly
>>>>applied science can only answer questions of fact.
>>>>
>>>>> So, good luck to you either way. Me... I'm going to live until I die.
>>>>> And in 5000 years, not one person will care what I thought or did. And
>>>>> that's fine. But while I was here, I enjoyed my Mustangs, my guns, my
>>>>> computer, my family, fishing, and everything else.... including this
>>>>> non-productive exchange of ideas.
>>>>
>>>>Well, I plan to live until I die as well. I don't have that immortality
>>>>thing worked out yet. But hey, I enjoy my Capri, my computer, my hunting
>>>>and
>>>>fishing too. Rabbit, pheasant, deer, and salmon, walleye, large mouth
>>>>bass -
>>>>in order of favorite respectively.
>>>>
>>>>I don't believe any exchange of ideas is unproductive.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>>> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>>> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>>> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>>> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>>
>
> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Spike wrote:
>
> And why do you suppose that so many scientists are stepping forward
> and acknowledging that they have come to believe in the Hand of God in
> Creation? This was once the demarcation between science and religion.
> Science claimed proof, and religion claimed faith. Now science
> acknowledges faith, and religion has begun to acknowledge science.

WTF are you reading, or listening to? Whatever it is, stop it, because
you're in cloud cuckoo land.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

I accept science as infallible, not scientists. If one has all information,
(within Newtonian physics, you keep bouncing over to theoretical quantum
theory) and rigorously apply logic, nothing but a correct answer can be
reached. If you were to say, "we don't have all the acquirable
information,"
that's a legitimate argument to make, and in keeping with the principles of
the scientific method. If you say, "some information is not acquirable,"
that's mysticism.

What you are saying that we can never know anything because we don't know
everything.

Let me put this in somewhat Socratic language -- We don't know what we
don't know, and we don't even know that we don't know it. So, we can't know
anything fully, because we don't know everything, or even know of everything
there is to know.

I flatly reject that. According to your logic, how can someone
justifiably be convicted of a crime based, not on confession, but on
evidence presented?

If the morals of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can put a man to death, surely,
they can be used to legislate carbon emissions.

How was the fishing?

--
"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> may result in my waking up dead.

Now, that would be a scientific feat.


Richard

'94 GT 'vert
Under Drive Pulleys
Transgo HD2 Reprogramming Kit
High Stall Torque Converter
4:10 Gears
Gripp Sub Frame Connectors (welded)
FRPP Aluminum Drive shaft
FRPP M5400-A Suspension
Laser Red

actually an interview with several astronomers, mathematician and a
geneticist or two in a discussion which originated on the subject of
cloning and extended from there.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:27:44 GMT, rw >
wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>>
>> And why do you suppose that so many scientists are stepping forward
>> and acknowledging that they have come to believe in the Hand of God in
>> Creation? This was once the demarcation between science and religion.
>> Science claimed proof, and religion claimed faith. Now science
>> acknowledges faith, and religion has begun to acknowledge science.
>
>WTF are you reading, or listening to? Whatever it is, stop it, because
>you're in cloud cuckoo land.

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Ah... now you limit the scope from science in general to Newtonian...
Guess there was too much leeway in the broadest scope of science.
When one retreats into the smallest possible realm, there is far less
possibility of being wrong. You should read Ann Coulter's book... LOL

And the fishing, under bright sun was COLD!!!!!!!

On 22 Nov 2004 23:45:42 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:

>
>I accept science as infallible, not scientists. If one has all information,
> (within Newtonian physics, you keep bouncing over to theoretical quantum
>theory) and rigorously apply logic, nothing but a correct answer can be
> reached. If you were to say, "we don't have all the acquirable
>information,"
>that's a legitimate argument to make, and in keeping with the principles of
>the scientific method. If you say, "some information is not acquirable,"
>that's mysticism.
>
>What you are saying that we can never know anything because we don't know
>everything.
>
>Let me put this in somewhat Socratic language -- We don't know what we
>don't know, and we don't even know that we don't know it. So, we can't know
>anything fully, because we don't know everything, or even know of everything
>there is to know.
>
>I flatly reject that. According to your logic, how can someone
> justifiably be convicted of a crime based, not on confession, but on
> evidence presented?
>
>If the morals of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can put a man to death, surely,
>they can be used to legislate carbon emissions.
>
> How was the fishing?
>
>
>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Spike wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:27:44 GMT, rw >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Spike wrote:
>>
>>>And why do you suppose that so many scientists are stepping forward
>>>and acknowledging that they have come to believe in the Hand of God in
>>>Creation? This was once the demarcation between science and religion.
>>>Science claimed proof, and religion claimed faith. Now science
>>>acknowledges faith, and religion has begun to acknowledge science.
>>
>>WTF are you reading, or listening to? Whatever it is, stop it, because
>>you're in cloud cuckoo land.

<moved top-posted reply here, where it belongs>

> actually an interview with several astronomers, mathematician and a
> geneticist or two in a discussion which originated on the subject of
> cloning and extended from there.

A survey in 1916 reported that 40% of scientists surveyed believed in a
supreme being.

A relatively recent survey in "Nature" (1998), which surveyed 517
members of the National Academy of Sciences, reported that only 7%
expressed belief in a "personal god", while 72.2% expressed "personal
disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Mathematicians
were much more likely to believe in god than scientists in other fields.
Those in the life sciences were among the least likely to believe in god.

I was a scientist before I retired, in a highly interdisciplinary field.
I can't recall a single colleague who expressed religious beliefs or who
attended church regularly. In fact, the general attitude in coffee-hour
discussions that touched on religion was thorough-going atheism and even
contempt for religion.

To assert that "many scientists are stepping forward and acknowledging
that they have come to believe in the Hand of God in Creation," based on
an interview that probably appeared in a religious publication, is
preposterous.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Matter reacts in the same way 99.99(to infinity)% of the time You're in the
smallest possible realm!

If you want to say, "well, matter sometimes changes it properties," well,
maybe it does. But, 99.9999(to infinity)% of the time, if I walk into a
brick wall, I won't pass through it. Sure, there is that infinitesimal
chance that matter will react differently and I can walk right through, but
for the purpose of not getting a broken nose, I'm not going to bet on it.

If as a result of the tiny chance that matter will not react in its usual
way, you want to throw up your hands and say, "Well, I can't fix the
refrigerator because the matter it consists of may act in an new way," how
can you ever do anything?

You can't just ignore Newtonian physics. If you do, climate change would be
the least of your worries. You should be more concerned with waking up as a
fish!

I'll say it again, if the morals of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can put a
man to death, surely, they can be used to legislate carbon emissions.



"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> Ah... now you limit the scope from science in general to Newtonian...
> Guess there was too much leeway in the broadest scope of science.
> When one retreats into the smallest possible realm, there is far less
> possibility of being wrong. You should read Ann Coulter's book... LOL
>
> And the fishing, under bright sun was COLD!!!!!!!
>
> On 22 Nov 2004 23:45:42 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:
>
>>
>>I accept science as infallible, not scientists. If one has all
>>information,
>> (within Newtonian physics, you keep bouncing over to theoretical quantum
>>theory) and rigorously apply logic, nothing but a correct answer can be
>> reached. If you were to say, "we don't have all the acquirable
>>information,"
>>that's a legitimate argument to make, and in keeping with the principles
>>of
>>the scientific method. If you say, "some information is not acquirable,"
>>that's mysticism.
>>
>>What you are saying that we can never know anything because we don't know
>>everything.
>>
>>Let me put this in somewhat Socratic language -- We don't know what we
>>don't know, and we don't even know that we don't know it. So, we can't
>>know
>>anything fully, because we don't know everything, or even know of
>>everything
>>there is to know.
>>
>>I flatly reject that. According to your logic, how can someone
>> justifiably be convicted of a crime based, not on confession, but on
>> evidence presented?
>>
>>If the morals of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can put a man to death,
>>surely,
>>they can be used to legislate carbon emissions.
>>
>> How was the fishing?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

What if automobile mechanics picked up on your line of reasoning ?

"Sorry Mr. Jones, your transmission isn't operating properly due to quantum
fluctuations. That's not covered under the warranty, so you'll have to pay
for it. We don't do that kind of work here, so we'll have to send you over
to Steve Hawking's garage, they do quantum mechanical jobs."

"Will they have to use a particle accelerator?"

"Oh yeah, they'll have to come up with a unified field theory too, you're
looking at some serious cost and time."


Can I pick-up a quantum-metrics wrench set at Sears?


"Jim S." > wrote in message
...
> Matter reacts in the same way 99.99(to infinity)% of the time You're in
> the smallest possible realm!
>
> If you want to say, "well, matter sometimes changes it properties," well,
> maybe it does. But, 99.9999(to infinity)% of the time, if I walk into a
> brick wall, I won't pass through it. Sure, there is that infinitesimal
> chance that matter will react differently and I can walk right through,
> but for the purpose of not getting a broken nose, I'm not going to bet on
> it.
>
> If as a result of the tiny chance that matter will not react in its usual
> way, you want to throw up your hands and say, "Well, I can't fix the
> refrigerator because the matter it consists of may act in an new way," how
> can you ever do anything?
>
> You can't just ignore Newtonian physics. If you do, climate change would
> be the least of your worries. You should be more concerned with waking up
> as a fish!
>
> I'll say it again, if the morals of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can put a
> man to death, surely, they can be used to legislate carbon emissions.
>
>
>
> "Spike" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ah... now you limit the scope from science in general to Newtonian...
>> Guess there was too much leeway in the broadest scope of science.
>> When one retreats into the smallest possible realm, there is far less
>> possibility of being wrong. You should read Ann Coulter's book... LOL
>>
>> And the fishing, under bright sun was COLD!!!!!!!
>>
>> On 22 Nov 2004 23:45:42 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I accept science as infallible, not scientists. If one has all
>>>information,
>>> (within Newtonian physics, you keep bouncing over to theoretical quantum
>>>theory) and rigorously apply logic, nothing but a correct answer can be
>>> reached. If you were to say, "we don't have all the acquirable
>>>information,"
>>>that's a legitimate argument to make, and in keeping with the principles
>>>of
>>>the scientific method. If you say, "some information is not acquirable,"
>>>that's mysticism.
>>>
>>>What you are saying that we can never know anything because we don't know
>>>everything.
>>>
>>>Let me put this in somewhat Socratic language -- We don't know what we
>>>don't know, and we don't even know that we don't know it. So, we can't
>>>know
>>>anything fully, because we don't know everything, or even know of
>>>everything
>>>there is to know.
>>>
>>>I flatly reject that. According to your logic, how can someone
>>> justifiably be convicted of a crime based, not on confession, but on
>>> evidence presented?
>>>
>>>If the morals of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can put a man to death,
>>>surely,
>>>they can be used to legislate carbon emissions.
>>>
>>> How was the fishing?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>
>