Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site imsvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!elsie!imsvax!rcc From: rcc@imsvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.sci,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Mind and Brain and Ki Message-ID: <219@imsvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Aug-84 13:59:49 EDT Article-I.D.: imsvax.219 Posted: Tue Aug 7 13:59:49 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 12-Aug-84 00:39:36 EDT References: <215@imsvax.UUCP> <118@mouton.UUCP> Organization: IMS Inc, Rockville MD Lines: 64 >++ >> On the other hand, if he says, "This is true, but I can't prove it.", >> then I'll laugh in his face and tell him to move to net.religion :-). >> Ray Chen >I don't know how serious you were about that, Ray, but I think a lot >of people take just that attitude, leaving a lot of possibly interesting >phenomenae to be explored without the benifit of the famed scientific >method. No one is saying that quasi-unnatural effects should be >accepted without doubt (even after rigorous 'scientific' proof, there >is room for doubt). >- Mark > BCR Sigh. Serves me right for being imprecise, I guess. What I meant is that if someone gives me a model to explain a phenomena and then offers no reasons why his model is better or at least as good as the currently accepted model, then I'm going to throw his model/theory out the window until he does give me some reasons. >A lot of people are saying "PSI does not exist," as if they're experts >or something. What if I say electrons don't exist because I've never seen >any evidence for them? Does any one know of any people who try to investigate >this stuff properly (without getting laughed in the face by their would-be >sponsers)? I suspect that if it were checked out, we would find quite >natural (by as yet unknown) explanations for 95% of it. (And maybe expand >our vision of 'science' a little for the other 5%.) Two points: first, anybody who tries to say electrons don't exist is going to have some real problems. He's got to either find an inconsistency in the theory, which if resolved, would imply the non-existence of electrons (good luck) or he's got to find an effect that can not be explained by the current theory, and propose a theory that explains everything the current theory does *plus* the new effect -- without electrons. Second, as I've said before, I don't really think we can *prove* (in the philosophical sense, 100% certainty, etc.) that anything is really true, the best we can do is come up with models/theories/etc. that approximate truth. (The exceptions to this are in the fields such as mathematics in which theorems can be proved true within a fundamental system of axioms and operations. However, such theorems are true only within that system.) >When you people say PSI (and all that other mumbo-jumbo) doesn't exist, >how do you explain (to yourself) the existence of acupuncture, all those >wierd things the asians do with karate, aikido, ta-chien (no, wait, that's >chicken...whatever), etc, and all the reports of ghosts, UFOs and so on. >Do you just ignore it, or are you satisfied to say, "I don't know, I don't >want to know." Doesn't sound very scientific to me! > >- Mark > BCR I don't ignore them. I've got some models to explain some of the above (although they may not be too good...) and the jury is still out on the others. One last point, though: Saying "I don't know" is not the same as "I don't want to know". -- The preceding message was brought to you by -- Ray Chen UUCP: {umcp-cs!eneevax || seismo!rlgvax!elsie}!imsvax!rcc