From: Derek Gatherer (email@example.com)
Date: Fri 11 Nov 2005 - 08:56:44 GMT
At 22:34 10/11/2005, Dace wrote:
> > It's sheer hubris to demand that those following
> > standard accepted ideas have the onus on them to
> > demonstrate that ideas outside the mainstream are
> > impossible.
>It's sheer hubris to privilege machinery, a human creation, over our own
>experience of life as a model for biological theory. Science isn't about
>"standard accepted ideas." It's about identifying the truth, regardless of
>how popular or unpopular it may be.
Again, I think that shows a lack of understanding about how science
works. It's a collegiate activity. Any one experimental result is
only good in as far as it can be replicated by other scientists. We
do "vote" on the current accepted truth, but it's not about
"popularity", it's about what works in the lab for the largest number of people.
>All we need for a rational theory of life is fields and memory. We need
>holistic organization that operates according to what has worked before. It
>must be probabilistic, not deterministic, in order to allow us to change
>course if we see fit. As this theory can account for life as we actually
>know it to be, reductionists must demonstrate why it can't be true. The
>onus is on you.
Bertrand Russell used to tell a story about the time when he was on
the popular lecture circuit in the 1920s. During a public talk when
he was expounding the latest developments in quantum mechanics and
relativity, he was interrupted by a lady who maintained that he had
said nothing that would disprove her belief - that the world rested
on a giant turtle. Russell, naively thinking that a little rational
argument could disabuse the poor woman, tried, "But what, madam, does
the turtle rest on?" The lady was unimpressed. "It's turtles all
the way down."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 11 Nov 2005 - 09:16:13 GMT