first, there're no fish here.... i discuss Religion in places where Religion
is discussed.
czar at ecn.ab.ca wrote in message <378fe27d.0 at ecn.ab.ca>...
[...]
*************************************************************
> In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a
> degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional
> assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise
> tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time
> in physics classrooms.
> -Stephen Jay Gould
> *************************************************************
>
the falacy in what 'czar' quotes of S. J. Gould is that what Gould refers to
as "fact" is only that which is construed through the 'lens' of that which
is merely familiar.
for instance, to stick with Gould's implicit reference to Newton's
_Principia_ and 'what's been referred to as 'attractive gravity', it's just
one long-familiar 'explanation' of stereotypical physical phenomena.
the prejudice toward that which is merely familiar [PTOFA] that is implicit
in Gould's comments is also implicit in virtually all behavioral dynamics,
regardless of species. as one traverses phylogeny toward more-primitive
organisms, PTOFA becomes increasingly 'hard-coded' in the DNA, and
vice-versa.
there's Sorrow in the 'vice-versa' (and also sadly-humorous wordplay)...
Humans, being most-free of the 'hard-coded' stuff, nevertheless, choose
PTOFA because, choosing thusly, is correlated with superficially-efficient
configurations within nervous systems.
it's this 'superficial-efficiency' that constitutes the stuff of the
prejudice expressed in Gould's statements, quoted by 'czar' in 'czar's'
prior post.
it's not that 'apples might start to rise'. it's that apples do not tend to
stereotypically move toward centers of mass due to there being an
'attractive force'... the notion of that which has been referred to as
'gravity' being 'due to there being an 'attractive force' is =just= ignorant
speculation having been prejudicially carried forward as a matter of
'intellectual convenience'... as is explained in the "Automation of
Knowing..." ms. (AoK).
in a 'nutshell', people 'hate' ["move away from"] because they 'fear'
[experience TD E/I(up)], and they 'fear' because they do not 'understand'
[do not experience TD E/I(min)], and they do not 'understand' becuse
'hating' is less work than is 'understanding'.
all the disharmony that so ravages Humanity is due to the prevalence of the
prejudice which 'chooses' mere information-processing 'convenience' over
doing the physically-real work inherent in understanding... folks'd rather
murder one another... would rather murder their own Children... than do the
work inherent in understanding.
the essence of Gould's comments, quoted by 'czar' in 'czar's' prior post,
are 'just' one more instance of the inherent Tragedy.
ken collins [ who will take what's here before any Scientists, anywhere
(only thing is that, since i've lost my income, until i can find new
employment, anyone wanting to take up the Challenge inherent, will have to
cover my expenses... i expect that no one will... 'two' much physically-real
work is involved on there parts... and, so, as is explained in AoK (see, in
particular, Ap10) folks continue, despite all their efforts to "move away
from" the understanding, to do =nothing= other than heap substantiation upon
the understanding :-) kind of ironic, ain't it? KPC]
