Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
These Brilliant Contributions And Papers Inc. Dr.D

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by M.W.Pearson on January 17, 2002 21:28:59 UTC

To Harv and Harv Not ( Each of You so Gracious as to be corresponding with me ... I would post my email but I don't know if I receive all my email )

That's neat to have papers to read and compare... before reading the papers you cited, a couple of comments

Dr. Dick's work is an achievement even if only slightly extending what you call "the concerns that skeptics always cite" or helping communicate them...your familiarity attests that these are worth learning, and the paper communicates.
Soon I will read it all. I guess Phi. musings were not in the epilogue but some were in the paper itself.
Forgive my juvenile prattling on for I am in middle age and out of practice...just a little more hype:
Einstein and Darwin only somewhat extended the logic of their fields...maybe 2%, though fortunately for their reputations, an important 2% ...the advancement of knowledge by 2% can seem small or large... Yes, it is pretentious of me to assign a quantity...but for example's sake, how else do we actually measure quality of thought?
But the number of phenomena which a new principle has explained? But that's a quantity, and the value assigned to pheonomena could either be 1.0 each or they could be weighted by importance or by the difficulty of the calculation involved, whether all organic or a mix of organic and symbolic as in calculus equations (a reference to various discoveries by persons who are called "innocent of math.)

Your critique of Dr. D's paper will be taken into account, as will the fuss over my usernames which seems silly, (in the breezy, fun sense of the word) but not silly enough to be urgent, to me. I hope I'm not just seeing it wrong.

It may be easy for both our pov's anyway, since my volume of posts will be decreased (trying to play even nicer) and I don't anticipate making any more user names, at least for a long time.

It's neat that you actually responded to this, considering how seldom there was lucid response to my other questions and discussions.
See ya and thanks for both links.
I hope this forum stays up!

WR again
Mike


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins