RE: virus: Re:[Fwd: Re: memes at the meme site]
Robin Faichney (r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk)
Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:38:52 +0100
> >Does science say, if you can't prove it, you can't use it,
> >or is that scientism I'm thinking of?
> >
> >Robin
>
> Well, since it is scientism (and it's siblings) which feel content to
> put
> words in the mouth of science, it must be scientism, cuz science ain't
>
> said it.
>
> _Technology_ says it, though. After all, technology is the use of
> things.
> If you can't use it, it ain't technology.
>
Umm, I think you lost the thread there. The question was
about the necessity of proof. The answer(s): (a) as we
can't get proof, it can't be necessary; (b) even if science
was about proof, the fact that technology predates it (eg
stone axes) shows that we don't need proof for technology
either.
> IMHO, any valid model of the universe can develop a technology. This
> is
> my main argument against the utility of shamanism.
>
If you define utility as technological, then obviously any
non-technology will lack it. But messing with matter is
not all there is -- there's also messing with minds, isn't
there?
Robin