Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (83788)	7/13/2000 4:02:40 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

Yes, love must be chemical in its essence. Pheromones hold the key. Sad.......

To: The Philosopher who wrote (83788)	7/13/2000 4:05:37 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Not love, "attraction", a very different animal.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (83788)	7/13/2000 4:59:05 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>That would violate a basic tenant of science which is taken on faith.< Tenet. If you've followed my conversation with Neocon, you will see that science (honest science in any case) does not seek to explain everything. Sure there are people who strenuously desire that it do so. But it is not RPT not a basic premise built into science that it either contain everything, or nothing at all. Love does not fall into the currently accepted category of "repeatable, quantifiable observata". That being so it is an unsuitable scientific topic. And yet I wouldn't dream of denying its force in my life.