Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA17905 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 13 Nov 2001 19:38:58 GMT Message-ID: <001101c16c79$cb0f3a60$6f24f4d8@teddace> From: "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> References: <20011113170332.AAA20271@firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: Debunking pseudoscience: Why horoscopes really work Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:31:23 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Not one of your better efforts, Wade.
"Didactic" can be applied to any clear, concise statement, so it's not a
very effective insult. Not that a couple of all-purpose, gratuitous insults
could serve any kind of constructive purpose. It's not as if you're saying
something that I could then respond to. All I can do is throw it back in
your face, where it came from.
You do make one point, though-- that science is a function of the mind-- and
it's not so much didactic as banal. In this case, all I can do is applaud
your keen discernment. Bravo!
> On 11/13/01 11:42, Dace said this-
> >Science can be treated one of two ways, either as glorified engineering
> >compartmentalized philosophy.
> How didactic.
> Compare this to treating it as a function of mind, which is what it is-
> the way the senses and the intellect work out the world.
> And in the absence of dogma, it always gets it right.
> But it's tough to avoid, dogma.
> But, who wants a dog for a mama, anyway?
> - Wade
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 13 2001 - 19:44:49 GMT