--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com> wrote:
> As Eliezer
> says, if the result is reproducible, and not a
> statistical fluke, it is one heck of a result and
> could significantly rock the foundations of science.
I appreciated Bryan Moss's reminder to look to the
identities and motivations of those who commissioned
the "research". This is one of the oldest and most
reliable filters, and I'm embarrassed to have lapsed
regarding its consistent and ruthless application.
Thanks Bryan. (Noting the venue of the research, ie
Korea, I wonder, "Could have been commissioned by the
rev Moon?")
I agree with Eliezer about the value of its verifi- or
falsifiablity, but not with the idea that, if
verified, it will set science on its ear.
No need to get one's rationalist panties in a twist.
We have electromagnetic, gravitational, and
quantum-entanglement-mediated action at a distance.
Considering these precedents, why should a
biologically-mediated variant be anything more than
the next addition to the list? Don't fear the truth,
celebrate it. Remember, "Science works, religion
doesn't." (B. Chong) Once the materialist basis for
the phenomenon is elucidated, the metaphysicians will
fold their tent and retreat again into the darkness.
Best, Jeff Davis
"Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
Ray Charles
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:11 MDT