<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; khtml-nbsp-mode: space; khtml-line-break: after-white-space"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>>Ah, but science does not do this. Science says that there will be a
lunar eclipse next </DIV>
<DIV>>Thursday, at exactly this time, viewed exactly from this range of
locations. And these things </DIV>
<DIV>>always take place as advertised when the math is done properly. That is
what people need to >be taught - the hover-car salesman is not a
scientist.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The hover-car example was perhaps an extreme one,
but scientists do regularly make predictions that don't come through on time.
It's, of coarse, not helped by the media 'hyping up' any prediction made to the
point of suggesting it's a near certainty. They appear to have learnt for
earlier scientists, who would make predictions closer to the hover-car example,
that there's a good, embarassing story to be created by turning predictions into
promises.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>I'm not sure I follow you here - what exactly is wrong with denying the
possibility before even </DIV>
<DIV>>looking at it? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Because that is fundamentally not being scientific,
fair or agnostic. To say outright "astrology is for morons" without bothering to
check for any correlations it predicts puts the individual alongside the
catholic alter kisser in my eyes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>>Don't you think it is more harmful to indoctrinate that there has to be
something?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Certainly, but I have a hard time beliving it to be
worse than indoctrinating people into overlooking evidence for things that
conversely might be there. By creating a group of 'scientists' who deny things
before even thinking about them, you're priming the religion v. science for a
serious, unnecessary, war.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>>The majority of religious people are the religions of their parent(s).
What choice did they </DIV>
<DIV>>have? </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Oh man, you do not even want to get me started on
circumcision - or... ritualistic surgical torture of infants, as it would
otherwise be known.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But on the same note, what choice do children have
who are brought up by parents (and society) telling them that anything not
immediately explained by science (usually at beginner level) is rubbish? For
example, if you try suggesting these kinds of ideas to a lot of agnostic people,
you won't leave the room without your ears hurting. Children need bringing up to
appreciate that there are things they don't presently understand, and simply
ruling the entirity of them to be null only slows down progress and creates the
void in which new ideas can be ignored. I'm not suggesting we start distorting
probability systems here in favour of religion, I'm suggesting we loose the
unfounded bias that anything religious deserves a probability of 0.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>This is part of why I made my earlier remark about steering us away
from the use of the </DIV>
<DIV>>word "commandments" - </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I made a similar post about the commandments, that
people will just think we're weird. Religious people probably won't be
interested due to the lack of an immediate reward from our 'religion' and the
scientists will think you're some crazy religious nutter.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>>Religion isn't about making choices for yourself. Let's not sully our
work here with it. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Equally, let's not sully our work with bias either
- is what I'm suggesting.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think it's always important to remember that
whilst people have access to science, a lot of people trust and rely on science
in the same way that people trust and rely on religion to sort things out for
them - not understanding how the VCR works, let alone a particle accelerator.
The tablets you're giving them could be sugar. Of coarse, scientific tablets
like antibiotics usually have the better effect, but in the mind of the person
taking them, they're still sharing a lot of trust with you to make them
better.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>John</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>BullGuard Anti-virus has scanned this e-mail and found it clean.</DIV>
<DIV>Try BullGuard for free: <a href="http://www.bullguard.com/tracking.aspx?affiliate=bullguard&buyaffiliate=smtp&url=download.aspx">www.bullguard.com</a></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>