Re: Certainty, Experiments & Facts

Reilly Jones (70544.1227@CompuServe.COM)
01 Oct 96 00:01:59 EDT

Sarah Marr wrote 9/29/96: <This is getting a little too personal for my liking,
but I must say I found this particular post far more pleasant than the last one:
thanks, Reilly.>

Your welcome. Mutual reciprocity seems to work just fine.

SM: <Your formation of this opinion started from the premise that I thought
contradictory things could happen in the same place at the same time. I don't.
So that ain't my worldview. Promise.>


SM: <My value judgements decide what I tolerate and what I do not tolerate.>

And you don't want to "try and rationalize my system of morality and ethics at
this point." OK.

SM: <I'd rather not be destroyed _and_ honour diversity. Mind you, sometimes
that's a difficult fight!>

In this fight, does desiring being destroyed ever prevail over honoring
diversity? Even once?

SM: <When Brown first observed pollen motion there was no theory at all behind
it.... You don't need a theory to observe, and you don't need a theory to
record your observations.>

How did Brown recognize pollen without a theory? Or recognize motion without a
theory? If you want to pursue this line after you take a gander at the source I
provided, I'd be happy to. But I'm not going to plunge into interminable
details for now.

My, my, we're getting along like proper ladies and gentlemen all of sudden. <g>

Dennis Kaffenberger wrote 9/29/96: <Truth is relative and it is decided by a
popularity contests.>

Ugh... Those with the best weapons and the will to use them, end up winning
these kind of popularity contests. No thank you. I will assume that nothing
you have to say is true, since I don't give a rip about popularity contests.

Reilly Jones | Philosophy of Technology: | The rational, moral and political relations
| between 'How we create' and 'Why we create'