Re: memetics-digest V1 #1122

From: Van oost Kenneth (
Date: Thu 17 Oct 2002 - 19:03:13 GMT

  • Next message: Van oost Kenneth: "Re: memetics-digest V1 #1122"

    ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Jonkers" <>
    > Kenneth:
    > > > It is like the Pope, he can 't deny that God doesn 't exist even we
    > > > hard evidence that he doesn 't because of his belief...he wouldn 't
    > under-
    > > > mine the very bias of his existence and the same goes with science.
    > Congratulations Kenneth you just articulated a triple denial. To not being
    > able to deny non-existence of something is equivalent to accept
    > non-existence (not being able to deny is to be forced to accept). But this
    > is not what you mean I guess because your statement translates
    > into the pope accepting non-existence of god...

    Did I !? Good for me ! No really, the Pope can 't deny that God doesn 't exist even he ( the Pope) is convinced by the scientific evidence brought to him. He is master of the christian class, denial would stand for blasphemy.

    > But what do you mean by `the same goes with science'?

    The very bias of science is proove and verifibility, accepting in a way the existence of something like MR ( it sounds like a four letter word) that lacks proove and verifible aspects would undermine its very bias. Deniying MR helps to strenghten the bias of science's logic method to find proove for what we claim. No proove, no logic, no science... simple !

    If Ted for instance wants to proove MR he has to do that within the bounderies of constructing arguments, deductive or inductive, careful constructing, he has to come up with evidence, statistics, truthful premises,...all within the current set of the scientific logic, another kind of logic is not permitted_ where IMO within the scientific world a lot of " s... " is being published... but it is ok because they use the proper language....

    Ted can 't proove MR if he is bound to use arguments/ ways of talking which are in their being against another kind of logic. Science is a memeplex that doesn 't allow intruders...except if they are willing to use the scientific logic of science itself. How can he defend himself if he is obliged to use words and methods of the party he is attacking !? How can a lawyer defend a client if he is obliged to use the same ruling as the Public Prosecutor !?



    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 17 Oct 2002 - 18:52:03 GMT