***did not have our mathematics nor our current understanding of science and other knowledge.***

That's right, without experimental science you aren't gonna have such knowledge of the world.

***Dr. Dick's attempt to strip away all of those "predjudices" and tranform our view of what is through the use of one of our most objective tools of conscious reason ie: mathematics seems a reasonable approach to examine the purity of what we think we already know.***

Ah, but this is what science does. It strips away our prejudices by proposing theoretical constructs of the world that might be true (e.g., local symmetries, global symmetries, etc), and then proceed with the experimental endeavor. There is nothing objective about trying to eliminate the experimental endeavor and then pontificating and excommunicating such as Dick engages in doing. He doesn't listen to sound reasoning and has apparently little inkling on the history of science.

***the end result may be Monday morning quarterbacking with a twist. the twist being a new renewed confidence of the vantage point from which we view the next game Sunday.***

If it does this, then why isn't that Dick is unwilling to predict next Sunday's game? The reason: talking about how you predicted the end results of yesterday's Sunday game makes you seem so much more credible.

• Correction - harvey1 - May 6, 2003 - 11:57 UTC