RE: virus: Re:[Fwd: Re: memes at the meme site]
Robin Faichney (r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk)
Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:08:57 +0100
> From: Nathaniel Hall[SMTP:natehall@lgcy.com]
> Reply To: virus@lucifer.com
> Sent: 15 September 1997 14:44
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: Re: virus: Re:[Fwd: Re: memes at the meme site]
>
> Robin Faichney wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
>
Sorry. In neither of your responses here, do I see how your
point answers mine. Maybe we should just drop it.
Robin