Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,sci.psychology,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.bio,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
From: ch@chch.demon.co.uk (Charles Bryant)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!demon!betanews.demon.co.uk!chch.demon.co.uk!ch
Subject: Re: Roger Penrose's New Book (in HTML) 1.0
References: <39m0di$b69@onramp.arc.nasa.gov> <Cz2F9G.IHA@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com> <785119642snz@chch.demon.co.uk> <Czn85F.3oI@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com>
Reply-To: ch@chch.demon.co.uk
Lines: 38
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 1994 00:10:00 +0000
Message-ID: <785722200snz@chch.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:101451 sci.skeptic:96300 sci.psychology:30329 comp.ai.philosophy:22615 sci.bio:23350 sci.philosophy.meta:15011

In article <Czn85F.3oI@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com>
           pnorton@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com "Peter Norton" writes:

> 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.  

You seem to be confusing the discussion of the existence of such
phenomena with the discussion of the phenomena themselves.

> 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. 

This seems to have drifted away from the original inspiration, which
was that science cannot study psychic phenomena. It is important that
people don't think that science is supposed to have an answer for
everything. The whole purpose of science is to investigate the
unknown.

-- 
Charles Bryant (ch@chch.demon.co.uk)
