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: JF Quinnelly who wrote (13662)	11/17/1997 12:02:00 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

<< Gee, Del, I thought that this was how it's done. If a "witch" was executed in Salem, then the blame falls upon Christianity as a whole. Didn't I learn that logic from you? >> I would not blame those Christians who protested the executions. I didn't hear about too many of those though. Del

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (13662)	11/17/1997 2:46:00 PM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<The evidence for a Creator has to addressed in the field of epistemology and philosophy, not in the world of the material, just as the rules for scientific knowledge are debated in epistemology.>> Jfreddy, you are close, very close...but, yet, so far away. The above statement reveals precisely the obstacle that prohibits you from any possibility of further intellectual growth. John Galt, in his infinite charity, shall assist you, once again. The basic flaw can be found in the statement "The evidence for a Creator...". It is 'evidence' that epistomology debates and its definition that makes science possible. It is science, then, with the further task of defining what is and what is not that is based on the 'evidence'. The question, then, of whether a creator exists or does exist must fall within the domain of science. Epistomology can only debate what constitutes 'evidence'. The statement, "The evidence for a Creator..." has the result of effectively blurring the critical distinction of science and philosophy. By imposing a question of science into the philosophy that makes science, then science, itself, stands imperiled...and precisely because then anything can be described as science. Jfreddy, John Galt has stressed to you on many prior occassions that epistomology cannot be employed to questions that are the domain of science. Epistomology is an on-going debate over what constitutes the 'evidence' that provides science then the tool to define what is and what is not. In the social and political arena of science, these lines are drawn clearly, but, in reality, it is you, the individual, in the end, that must discern truth from fiction. And, too often, these 'necessary' demarkations are not so clearly drawn. John Galt, however, does see possibilites in you, JFreddy. Keep on with your struggle and perhaps, you, too, may one day enter into the Kingdom of Galt. John Galt