Steve Nicholls wrote:
> > All-conquering ... reductionist ... because true. Or are you
> > prepared to dispute with me? Ha! Your delusions of adequacy
> > are wholly unfounded unless you have a stronger view than MVT.
I've read the MVT treatise on your website. I'm afraid to say, I can't see
any sense in it at all; looks like something Mulder would come up with.
How is MVT anything more than a classic correlation/causation mistake? ie:
if I were to accept the premise that this "pineal eye" has withered as
consciousness has blossomed, how would I then draw the conclusion that the
two are in any way related?
(yes, I know I'm going to regret this)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:45 MDT