Re: Debunking pseudoscience: Why horoscopes really work

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Tue Nov 13 2001 - 20:37:08 GMT

  • Next message: Bill Spight: "Re: Wade's last week's phrase of the day..."

    Received: by id UAA18033 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:45:03 GMT
    Subject: Re: Debunking pseudoscience: Why horoscopes really work
    Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:37:08 -0500
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <>
    To: "memetics list" <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Message-ID: <[]>
    Precedence: bulk

    On 11/13/01 14:31, Dace said this-

    >"Didactic" can be applied to any clear, concise statement, so it's not a
    >very effective insult.

    Weren't intended as an insult, whatsoever. It was intended, albeit with a
    grain of sarcasm, to be precisely what it was. I know what 'didactic'
    means. It means 'intended to instruct', the intent being the point, not
    the fact of the instruction.

    >You do make one point, though-- that science is a function of the mind-- and
    >it's not so much didactic as banal.

    What I said was 'science is the way the senses and the intellect work out
    the world.'

    Banal, in the sense of commonplace, it might be, (since its ubiquity is
    obvious), but the foundational banality of it is missed and misunderstood
    by people who want to discuss it as compartmentalized philosophy, which
    is a useless way to look at it.

    Unless you don't want it to be useful.

    - 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 - 20:50:49 GMT