From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Firewalk
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:19:59 GMT
	<1992Jul30.170107.21017@burrhus.harvard.edu> <12613@inews.intel.com> 
	<2A7893C7.2334@noiro.acs.uci.edu>

In article <12613@inews.intel.com> 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>I think the thing to keep in mind is that science should never serve to deny
>>the experience of life. This is something we do too much of today. We say
>>things are either true or false, science or myth. Science is a tool to
>>increase the understanding of life, not to deny the individual experience of
>>life. 

In article <2A7893C7.2334@noiro.acs.uci.edu> 
cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>And just how does science do that?  The word science means many things
>to many people; to ME it means using your head and not just looking at
>things and letting the world steamroller over your five senses.  To
>other people, it sometimes means sitting in a little room doing stuff
>that looks kind of like math with the windows shut.  To  others, it
>means a bunch of geeks in white coats torturing Mother Nature.

I think we are in agreement here, but who is to say? 

>>The individual experience is always magical, whether there is a
>>scientific explanation or not. I can ride a bicycle and that is magic
>>independent of the scientific explanation, of which by the way there is none.

>Oh, really?  NO explanation?  Welcome to the 20th century. 

There is no mechanical explanation for the stability of motion. It is believed
to come from some type of interaction in the human/bicycle control system.
Control systems are an example of something we know little about. No one has
yet solved the equations for three bodies in space, a relatively simple
control system.

>Here's a little list of things that there IS a "scientific explanation"
>for:
>5. some aspects of superconductivity (Cooper electron pairs)

SOME is the key word.

>1. airplanes (Bernoulli again)

There are lots of problems here. Many modern planes do not have the classic
Bernoulli venturi shape, and yet they fly. Paper airplanes do not have the
classic Bernoulli shape and yet they fly. And then there is the humble bumble
bee, who also flies. Lift generating airfoils is a much better explanation
than Bernoulli.

>And there are more.  Please refrain from pontificating on the things
>that "have no scientific explanation" unless you know what you're
>talking about. 

OK, dat's cool doc.

>BULLSHIT.  How the fuck are saying something crude and squelching and 
>the drive to understand why things happen the way they do and become
>in a small part a participant in this world even SLIGHTLY related?
>Science is the study of how nature does what it does; the near-orgasmic
>sense of participation and understanding that you get when you
>understand something like that is nothing short of mind-blowing.  It is
>PART of my "individual experience," and part of all those who practice
>it.  Does its impartiality frighten you?

I only ask that as a scientist, you go back and reread the original fire
walking post and then the good scientific explanation of what happened and then
read the responses to that scientific post from people who were obviously
offended and probably not scientists. Do you see what happened? In this case,
science served to deny the experience of life. I'm not placing blame, only
making an observation. As a scientist, how could you have handled this
differently so that this misunderstanding would not arise? A scientist
must be aware of how non-scientists react to science. As a scientist, this is 
something I hope you learn. Don't get so caught up in the dogma of science. Let
me repeat my statement from above. Science is a tool to increase the 
understanding of life, not to deny the individual experience of life. Sabe?

>Science does NOTHING harmful.

Everything has a harmful effect, it is just a question of seeing all effects,
good and bad, and weighing the effects and adjusting as necessary. Life is
harmful, all life is harmful. This is not good or bad, just something to be
aware of and respond to.

>We are the comsumers who pushed technology too far.

Yes WE are. This is not good or bad or justification for censorship. Just
something to learn from, that's all.

>You are looking for some scapegoat to blame, and since too many Pagan are 
>Luddites already, you choose a nice safe one -- innocent science.

No, no scapegoats. Ain't no shame in my game. My ability to earn a "living"
is directly dependent on my knowledge of science, it would be foolish for me
to use it as a scapegoat. And you may want to read up on the Luddites, they
did have a point that too many were too quick to label as just anti-science
and anti-progress. Science is not all wrong, but it is not all right either. 
It is not an OT God who demands absolute faith, absolute trust, and the denial 
of other.

>>A rose by any other name still smells as sweet. This is true, even today.

>And understanding WHY it smells like it does makes it sour, I suppose.

No, not to me, but perhaps it does to a non-scientist. I'm sure you understand 
this as a person of science.

>I will continue to participate in the wonders of this universe.  I will
>continue to question.  I will continue to wonder WHY things happens and
>not just lay back lazily and say, "Oh, isn't that cool?  Look at the
>wonders of the universe *yawn*."  I have a mind that asks why.  I will
>attempt in every waking moment of my life to answer its ceaseless
>questioning.

Seems like a good metaphor by which to choose one's path, just don't forget to
stop and smell the roses on your way. Remember that it is the journey and not
the destination. And answer me this question: Which came first, night or day?