From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 06:58:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.041853.2393@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.003820.16961@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>>What's wrong with being a Reductionist?
>
>Nothing, if you have no qualms with the conceit that goes with reducing the
>nature and workings of life to a handful of flimsy theories deduced from
>likely misinterpreted observations collected through extremely band-limited
>sensors.

Shit.  This sounds almost like the drivel we get from Creationists.
I'm disappointed, because from other articles I'd seen from you, I
had developed a good deal of respect for you.  Is this your own
position, or is this something taught by Buddhism?

I'll be the first to admit that our sensors could be better, but I
don't think they're so bad that we should give up on them.  As for
the flimsy theories and misinterpreted observations, did you have
anything specific in mind?

>>What is so unfathomingly complex about life?
>
>Ever looked at it? I mean, pulled your nose out of the books and looked
>at it? What _isn't_ marvelously complex about it? Are you serious?

Yes, I am serious.  No, not all of what I say comes from reading books.
Much of it comes from observation and introspection.  Yes, life is
fascinating and fairly complex.  But "unfathomingly" is a pretty
powerful word.  To me, the most fascinating and inspiring thing about
it is that we are getting to the point where we can fathom it quite well.
What's the mystery?

>>>Would you call yourself a scientist,
>>>or scientifically enlightened? Your characteristically-youthful
>>>clinging to holy mantram like "electro-chemical reaction" would belie
>>>any such claim. 
>
>>Ah, there's that accusation of youthfulness again.  I believe Torkel
>>Franken (sp?) was tossing around similar accusations a day or two ago.
>>It saddens me.  It is yet another instance of our Wise Ones teaching
>>our youth to look at the world through the same blurry glasses that they
>>wear.
>
>They're blurry, but at least they let some light through. The ones you're
>wearing have nice little pictures you've painted on the insides of the lenses,
>producing the illusion that you're actually seeing something.

Aw c'mon Pete.  How does it advance the cause of science to pick some
arbitrary thing such as life, and declare it "unfathomable?"  Is it
just human life that is unfathomable, or is the life of an amoeba
unfathomable as well?

>>We can't possibly be scientifically enlightened unless we fill
>>our brains with mystic fog.
>
>It rolls in on an appreciation of the balance between zeal for
>investigation and knowing our limitations as investigators.

Declaring something unfathomable is not recognizing your limitation
as an investigator.  It is tossing in the towel.

>>Perhaps this is why scientists tend to
>>do their best work while they are young.
>
>Do they really, or are you just making this up?

I could be making it up.  Einstein did his best work when he was
in his twenties.  I've certainly seen it stated in a number of
places that mathematicians do their best work before their thirties,
but that might be irrelevant.

>>Perhaps it's inevitable that
>>the fog gets us all in the end, and good science becomes difficult
>>after that.  (BTW, I'm in my mid thirties, so I guess I don't qualify
>>as young.  Just unenlightened I suppose)
>
>Well, some just take a little longer, that's all. I wouldn't worry about it.

I'll try to fight it for as long as possible, but you're probably
right.  It'll probably get me in the end.  Damn brain rot.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism