Re: virus: Re:[Fwd: Re: memes at the meme site]
Nathaniel Hall (natehall@lgcy.com)
Mon, 15 Sep 1997 07:44:07 -0600
Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> (If my formatting seems a bit dodgy these days, please
> bear with me. I'm struggling with MS Exchange, having
> just moved from MS Mail.)
>
> > Nathaniel Hall[SMTP:natehall@lgcy.com] wrote:
> >
> > Robin Faichney wrote:
> > >
> > > Does science say, if you can't prove it, you can't use it,
> > > or is that scientism I'm thinking of?
> > >
> > > Robin
> >
> > If something is by is very nature undetecable by any means then of
> > course it's useless.
> >
> There's a difference -- rather a large one -- between
> detectability and provability.
>
Maybe so. But if it cannot be detected by any means whatsoever it does
not even fit between those two choices
> > For
> > something "limited" with "blind spots" don't you think its pretty
> > amazing what science has already discovered?
> >
> Nope. What's been discovered is certainly amazing,
> but science is not omniscient -- that's god-type thinking.
> Scientism, in fact.
>
I'd be satisfied knowning all that can be known. Who could ask for
anything more?
The Nateman