Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hank Kerchief; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; unspun; Phaedrus; logos; beckett; cornelis; Diamond; ...
junk science

No, it's called reestablishing the proper role of science (one would hope, including a repentence to the realization of what the Scientific Method is, for what we call "science") in the overall interpretation (macrointerpretation) of existence. SM having its limitations, that does not somehow magically impose limitations upon our regard for reality, nor our very need to regard the reality we haven't scientifically demonstrated, for our very survival. See "importance."

Junk science is claiming scientific validity where there is no explanation arrived via the scientific method. Examples include any use of scientific fact in order to oxymoronically allude to any naturalistic or materialistic dogma.

Conceptualize what you will, but reality is still reality, just as reality is, whatever humans understand or misunderstand of it. You need reality, however it is not demonstrable that reality will eventually have any need of you.

70 posted on 07/06/2003 9:51:19 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." - No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: unspun; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; Phaedrus; logos; beckett; cornelis; Diamond
You need reality, however it is not demonstrable that reality will eventually have any need of you.

Any concept of reality that excludes me, or you, or any other fact is not reality. So, reality does need us, to be conceptually correct. Reality is not a thing, it is a concept for all that exists as it exists.

Hank

103 posted on 07/06/2003 4:12:59 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson