From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Science and knowledge Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Deborah Harrell wrote: > > > Hey! What about the astronomy example I gave in > my first post this thread: > > > > "And for an even longer timeframe from observance > to 'scientific > > revision,' look at the change from an > Earth-centered to a sun-centered system! :) " > > Not a good comparison. If we looked at the sun and > planets but never > realized they were moving at all, then maybe you > would have a point. > > The problem is that you are comparing a situation > where we have a lot > of measurements and interaction with the element of > interest and have > found NOTHING to support your claim, with various > things that were based > on interpretation of data that did exist and just > required further > refinement. NOTHING does not equal SOMETHING.
<huge grin> Would you accept an area of inquiry that *men* have been pondering for ages, but claim still not to understand at all? (that last is a bit of an exaggeration...)
Women! ;)
There *could* be a joke in there somewhere about how illogical and irrational subjects aren't inherently understandable, but I certainly won't go searching for it.
;-)
Jon Wearing Flame Retardant Underwear Maru
Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
