From: julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Re: Are we privileged observers?
Keywords: universe,earth, paradox
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:34:27 GMT

salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:


>	Suppose you are right, there are facts that suggest that life
>is a commonplace, but suppose you are right in being overly cautious
>about this conclusion, then there is no information. What is the
>decision left up to? Is Man special in Creation or not? What this

[some deleted]

Depends what you mean by special. We certainly occupy a rather
particularly comfortable planet (but, of course, if it weren't we
would not occupy it). We seem to share consiousness with very few
other species so we are reasonably special in that way. Of course, 
we can be considered to be made up mainly of water, so have a lot
in common with the ocean. But I do feel somewhat more special 
than the atlantic.
I suppose the "special-ness" depends on what one wants to do with the
answer. If my aim is to show that there is no evidence for God anywahere
in nature then I will try and downplay the seeming coincidences needed
for life so that it looks common; if I am trying to demonstrate
reasons for believing in God then I will emphasise the uniqueness of
people. I do not care for either of these positions, but rest on the fact
that SO FAR AS WE KNOW this planet is IT. ALL THE LIFE THERE IS.
That makes us (not just Man) pretty special to my mind. Perhaps
it takes 15 billion years and all the laws of physics to produce
an orchid: wouldn't you say that was a special orchid? 
And to preempt any replies that I have a hidden agenda for specialness:
as if I am going to whip God out of my pocket and say 
"HA, got you there, here He is !", I can cope with being alone
in the cosmos but I think it is a pretty wonderful cosmos.


>>there are a hell of a lot of things that might be true in the universe,
>>but science is not science fiction.
>>Science explains what we can observe not what we cannot. 

>	But it tells us how to explore the unknown, how to probe
>the unknown, and how to frame and ask questions. None of this is
>passive but an active quest, and you are telling us not to quest?
>Why, is the possible result too frightening?

I never said do not look.
I can repeat what I said some time ago. I like physics, I think
science is great. But we ought not to make assumptions based on no evidence.
Science tells us hw to probe the physical unknown. If you wish to limit
your life to only those things that are known by scientifc methods,
fine, I believe there is more to life than that, and do not like people
using physics (and other disciplines) to claim there is no more to
the universe than what we can see, or that there is no more to us than
$2 of chemicals.         

>	I know that we should not coufuse speculation with fact.
>I know that we don't know for sure that E.T. exists, but your
>quickness to junp on the negative side of the question means that
>you shrink from the possibility and suggests that you have some
>other reason to presuppose that it isn't so.

>Bruce Salem

Actually I think that finding alien life would do good for us. It might 
persuade us to stop squabbling on our home turf and sort out what
we really want to do. But I think it woulod also be an incredible
jolt to our world view. But I have no particular motive for
preferring aliens to exist or not.

julian

Newsgroups: talk.origins