From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:36:25 GMT

In article <1eq9hqINNfa3@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.154625.27778@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>#In article <1efhvcINNcin@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#>And the problem with all of science is that there are vast numbers of
>#>completely unreconciled departments all saying apparently contradictory
>#>things about the universe.  Religion is one of those departments.  
>#That's garbage. Religion is not a subset of science(non-empirical.)
>We are using two different definitions of science (more likely the same
>definition used in two different ways).  I understand science to be
>equivalent to 'understanding' or 'knowledge'.
Hmmm...I'm not using it in that sense at all. Science is a specific
empirical method of finding knowledge. My view is probably closest to
Popperian.

>Furthermore, religion _is_ empirical.  People experience faith, in the same
>way that they experience sentience.  Experience is the only real evidence for
>either.  (i.e. you can't see either of these things under an electron
>microscope).
You empirically have faith. The faith is not empirically justified. There
is a difference. Sure, one can study faith per se. That's usually calle
something like psychology of religion. But religion does not scientificall
study the objects of faith(gods, afterlife, etc.)

>Back to science: I have yet to see a scientific theory which explains to me
>why I should feel so profoundly good when my 3-year old son kicks up the
>leaves in Munich and sings songs about Santa Claus.  Those are some empirical
>facts which do not fit any conventional science.  I can repeat the experiment
>if you like.
You really don't seem to understand at all. Merely because some facts are
unexplained does not make them either unexplainable or somehow
imply that they don't fit into conventional science. 

>All I am saying is "people are strange".   They do not follow the laws of
>cause and effect.
That doesn't seem obvious to me at all. If I jump off a building, I seem
to fall, just as a brick would. Similarly, I can show you pretty clear
evidence that your mind does obey sets of laws. Ever tried conditioning
yourself?

> I think that people who attempt to superimpose the laws of
>science and logic on people's behaviour (and equally God's, if she exists)
>may be trying to subordinate a higher (more complete) system to a lower one.
I see no reason at all to believe this. There is not a shred of evidence
to show that human behavior is any less deterministic(not to be confused
with hard to predict) than the rest of the natural world. You may wish
to believe that you are somehow not governed by the same material laws
as everything else but wishing does not make it so.
-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion