From: mwk20@ccc.amdahl.com (Michael W Knowles)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: PKI and PSI (was Re: NEXT)
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:54:09 GMT
Reply-To: mwk20@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Michael W Knowles)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <7113@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute) writes:
>In article <Xk1qwB17w165w@anarky.tch.org> nightsng@anarky.tch.org (Nightsong) writes:
>>Anyway, I *COMPLETELY* agree that supposedly intelligent people are so 
>>resistant to anything they cannot touch or measure or quantify (to quote 
>>you)  They are ALSO resistant to anything they cannot prove through 
>>certain scientific methods they have had drilled into their heads all 
>>their lives.
>>-Nightsong
>
>I think you are being a little unfair on rational and scientific thinkers, here.
>There is a reason for them having adopted the style of thinking that they have:
>it's called discipline, and is a necessary condition which one must accept if
>one is ever to use any tool (whether it be a hammer, a gun, or a human mind) in
>an effective and controlled manner.

It is also true that a dominant idea can be a hindrance.  It is, however,
that discipline which renders scientific study valid (assuming the tools
have been appropriately applied).

...stuff deleted...

>Maybe there is more to PKI, PSI, homeopathy, astrology, etc, etc than the
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
Probably not a good choice...homeopathy is scientifcally accepted in other
countries.  We're just a bit slow here in the U.S.

>average scientist would admit; maybe not.  At least the conservative, disapplined
>approach has served society well in 95% of cases.  It has allowed us to break

I suspect that the actual figure is much less than 50%.  I'd agree that
the "conservative, discliplined approach" works 95% of the time in areas
where it is actually applicable, but such areas probably account for
considerably less than 50% of what goes on in life.

I was going to say less than 10%, but what do I know.  8{)


>away from irrational theories and fairy stories.  No longer do we waste human
>lives by sacrificing virgins at the mouths of volcanoes, or at the on-set of
>solar eclipses.  No longer do we put leaches on to sick people.  No longer do
>we jettison our most valued possessions by throwing them into rivers and wells.

Hmmm...and no longer do we treat nature with the respect and care it deserves.
Somewhere along the line, some bright person decided that nature was here
for us to conquer, not to live in harmony with.  Of course, that's not
a fault of the tools of scientific discourse.  Simply a problem in the
ways the tools have been applied.

>
>As long as science doesn't forbid the study of the fringes, as indeed it doesn't,
>but merely to treat them with skeptism, the system seems to work fine.  
>--
>
>Malcolm SHUTE.         (The AM Mollusc:   v_@_ )        Disclaimer: all

Agree.  It seems to me that, when I consider the approaches of the
truly great scientific minds of history, I see a genuine openness to
the fringe.  Have there not been discoveries by those who were
regarded by their peers as residing in the lunatic fringe?

Michael
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Knowles                 Won't that road twist you up
mwk20@amail.amdahl.com              like a rubber band?
408-746-3305

Standard disclaimer applies.  Bye Now...
---------------------------------------------------------------------