Big Bang?

[John Doe]

Uhhhhh...yeahhhhhh...so, what exactly is the
alternative to "Western " science? As opposed to
?....this specious distinction between a supposed
"Eastern" WAY of doing stuff, and the Dualistic, fill
-in - the - blank "Western " WAY has always been
murky, wooly and irresponsibly vague: this distinction
is erroneous, and I might add, usually perpetuated by
folks who have no clue how science really "works"...go
and actually hang out with an Indian scientist, a
Japanese, an Iranian and a Russian; they will quickly
clear up all this hogwash about " a different way of
thinking"...there is no such thing as, say Tibetan
calculus, Japanese- differential equations, Russian
geometry...the way the human brain "processes" reality
is the same across all cultures..."Eastern" people
reason the same way everyone else does...if they
didn't, there would be no science in Russia...or
India...

--- lsavage at westmont.edu wrote:

> I am shocked that anyone would be so brash as to
> conflate "antiscience" and 
> "anti-Darwinism". I expect better attention to the
> proper catagorization of 
> things and people from the members of this list. The
> Western definition of 
> science is not the end-all definition, and neither
> is yours.
> 
> My humble suggestion is that you let your heads
> catch up with your emotions and 
> ensure that the things you say actually contain
> meanings which are not absurd.
> 
> (I'm sure absurdity happens to everyone now and
> again - it is not my intention 
> to offend - just please, be a little more attentive
> in the future, eh?)
> 
> Quoting David Casseres <david.casseres at gmail.com>:
> 
> > On 9/29/05, jbor at bigpond.com <jbor at bigpond.com>
> wrote:
> > > On 30/09/2005, at 3:51 AM, David Casseres wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Big Bang hypothesis doesn't infer cause
> from effect.
> > >
> > > The syllogism goes like this: the universe
> (experienced/perceived
> > > effect) exists, so there must have been a Big
> Bang (inferred cause).
> > 
> > Not a cause, just an origin.
> > 
> > > > It doesn't
> > > > address cause at all.
> > >
> > > So it *is* rabbit out of a hat stuff? Voilà.
> > 
> > No, the hypothesis doesn't mention a hat, it just
> tells the story of the
> > rabbit.
> > 
> > > > It is simply a narrative of the history of the
> > > > universe.
> > >
> > > As is the Book of Genesis. Or any other Creation
> myth.
> > 
> > If you like.  However the Big Bang hypothesis
> emerges from observed
> > evidence, not from the words of the forefathers.
> > 
> > > > And it is neither atheism nor agnosticism.  It
> is just science, which
> > > > you insist on conflating with atheism.
> > >
> > > In the terms of your little allegory, if
> "Physics" concluded "There is
> > > no God", then that'd be atheism. Atheism is the
> belief, or faith, that
> > > there is no God. But when "Physics" says "I
> don't know whether there
> > > is/was a God", that's agnosticism.
> > 
> > Have it  your way.  I guess it's "agnosticism,"
> but that's a category
> > invented by deists.  It means nothing to science.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Here's something I need to say:
> > 
> > It is monstrous that the antiscience movement has
> gathered so much
> > momentum that it shows up, in its most destructive
> form, on the
> > Pynchon list of all places.  The attack on science
> is an attack on
> > humanity, by way of attacking one of humanity's
> highest achievements. 
> > As well attack literature itself, or philosophy,
> or music, or any of
> > the arts.  I fear for the culture that gave me
> birth, education, and a
> > lifetime of experience.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com