Aurino's previous post was funny if he meant it seriously. It was not funny if he was trying to be funny.
Aurino then said
Dr. Dick's paper at
http://sites.netscape.net/doctordicks/PREFACE.htm is entirely meaningless,
yet it's not. It's very wordy and some of your commentary about it is interesting...like Dick's paper.
I have only spent a few minutes on the paper, and there are some sillies in it, if he's being serious:
For example, Dick's epilogue was not available because it had not yet been translated into html... yeah, right. That takes about 30 seconds.
I like this quote from Dr. Dick:
"If one reviews the history of science one will find that most of the major breakthroughs can be seen as flowing from the realization that their predecessors had made some subtle unexpressed assumption which was actually without foundation. Errors in assumptions usually betray their presence by allowing seemingly contradictory results to be well defended."
This is a nice launching point for scientific reverie, wherein great and logical thoughts are founded. Even the foundations of Aurino's Zen, Judaism and other pillars need revisiting. But I would do so gently for they have some venerable
attributes and nasty dragons.
This, I found, is the single greatest source of confusion in a person's mind, their (our) inability to tell the difference between aesthetical value and logical correctness..."
Part of Einstein's 1905 theory/ paper and Lorentz' work was almost discounted because the next data didn't support it. Einstein stuck to his point, in part because of the beauty of the equations, but also because they were indeed logical. What are you saying aobut beauty and logic. Anything?
Loius Pasteur wrote: "The greatest disorder of mind is to let the will direct belief." It's not credentialism alone which favors Pasteur over
Aurino on this matter.
Are you trying to defend religious faith?
But we should not replace logic with aesthetic theological faschism... we suspend judgement and allow religious diversity in part because what is beautiful for one is not beautiful for another, and because a proper dialogue has not really settled many matters.