Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,sci.psychology,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.bio,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!halsoft.com!netcomsv!kiki.icd.teradyne.com!beaux!pnorton
From: pnorton@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com (Peter Norton)
Subject: Re: Roger Penrose's New Book (in HTML) 1.0
Message-ID: <Czn85F.3oI@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com>
Organization: none
References: <39m0di$b69@onramp.arc.nasa.gov> <Cz2F9G.IHA@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com> <785119642snz@chch.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 00:32:03 GMT
Lines: 26
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:101223 sci.skeptic:96134 sci.psychology:30200 comp.ai.philosophy:22466 sci.bio:23286 sci.philosophy.meta:14941

ch@chch.demon.co.uk writes:
> pnorton@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com writes:
>
>> Haven't we learned yet that not all of Nature's phenomena don't fit the
>> neat little prescription of being 'quantifiable, repeatable, and independent
>> of observer'?
>
>It is futile to even attempt to discuss phenomena which are not
>'independent of the observer'. If a phenomenon is dependent on the
>observer then each person must investigate it for themselves and

Exactly so.

>discussion of it is pointless. Discussion of phenomena, unless for
>aesthetic reasons or to satisfy curiosity, is only useful to the
>extent that there is common ground.

non sequitur.  It is useful to at least admit the possibility of such
phenomena, which, to date, scientistic dogma has refused to do.  
Science is not immune from the human foible of repressing the unknown.
It is useful for science to admit this to the general public who treat 
science as omniscient and infallible. 

Cheers


