barrington interview

António Pedro Marques · 14 Oct 2014, 13:07 · from 2014-October.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ant=C3=B3nio_Pedro_Marques?=)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:07:37 +0100
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
In-Reply-To: <BLU175-W44843BD9E1BA77E615CC19CFAD0 at phx.gbl>
References: <BLU175-W44843BD9E1BA77E615CC19CFAD0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <42CAC7C6-9AAA-4C9B-B0DE-50861B2A285D at gmail.com>

No dia 14/10/2014, ?s 12:59, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> escreveu:

> Why would observations made in this tiny corner be presumed to apply to all other corners?

The problem is that people take science to be philosophy, which it is not (and ethics, which it is not). Thus they interpret the reasonable scientific claim 'this theory fits nice with every observation we have' as the ascientific 'the observations we have are a consequence of this theory (and so, any other future observations will be in accordance with it)'. This confusion is denied or encouraged by scientism, but scientism-ites, for all their championing of science, have been able to produce a pretty little amount of it. Science doesn't like to be worshipped!

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net