Frank, I tried to mail this but it bounced.  It is fast moving out
of t.a scope, but I didn't know if t.a was the only group of the three
that you subscribed to.
Apologies to regular t.a folks.



You must be using 'values' to mean something different from the way I
see it used normally.

And you are certainly using 'Science' like that if you equate it to
"the real world".

Science is the recognition of patterns in our perceptions of the Universe
and the making of qualitative and quantitative predictions concerning
those perceptions.

It has nothing to do with values as far as I can see.
Values are ... well they are what I value.
They are what I would have rather than not have - what I would experience
rather than not, and so on.

Objective values are a set of values which the proposer believes are
applicable to everyone.


I don't agree.
Science is useful insofar as it the predictions mentioned above are
accurate.  That is insofar as what I think *will be* the effect on
my perceptions of a time lapse (with or without my input to the Universe)
versus what my perceptions actually turn out to be.

But values are about whether I like (in the loosest sense of the word) the 
perceptions :-)


I don't see why.
'Usefulness' in science is synonomous with 'accuracy' - period.
Tarot predictions are not useful because they are not accurate - or
can't be shown to be accurate.
Science is useful because it is apparently accurate.

Values - objective or otherwise - are beside the point.

No?