SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (1246)3/5/2002 10:26:29 AM
From: thames_sider  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057
 
the a priori exclusion of spiritual explanations is merely a bias.
A bias in that it is not considered an 'explanation' to attribute any unexplained mystery to something of unproven and unprovable existence - especially when said thing is itself often the mystery under scrutiny and is given limitless power and knowledge and unknowable motivations.
It's not a helpful explanation - IMHO it isn't one at all.

Alternatively, prove that earthquakes *aren't* caused by the giant invisible Pixie who lives in the sun.



To: Neocon who wrote (1246)3/5/2002 10:29:54 AM
From: Lane3  Respond to of 21057
 
Even if the evidence is not conclusive, it would be refreshing to gain an admission that it is not conclusive either way.

Yes, it would be. ;)

Karen



To: Neocon who wrote (1246)3/5/2002 1:10:28 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057
 
Ahh Mystery. What would our lives be without it. It would be interesting to find a study on how people deal with mystery as a maturational measure (if the ability to deal with mystery can qualify as maturation). Is there is some sort of taxonomy of dealing with mystery. Like for instance Blooms taxonomy of knowing or the Elisabeth Kubler-Ross stuff on death and dying.

It seems some people crave new mysteries, while some people are unconcerned about mysteries that drive still others to the brink of suicide.