(Gerald L. O'Barr) wrote in message . com...
(Patrick Reany) wrote in message om...

In
(Patrick Reany) wrote:
In
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Physics and Reality.

Reality is prime. If anything exists, it is only
because reality allows it to exist. Physics is a
science by which man endeavors to determine
reality. It is reality being determined, since
reality is all that there is to be determined.
. . .

delete of over 30 lines of O'Barr's comments,
because Reany made no specific comments about them.


Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
All you did, Reany, was to ignore every thought
made. Your final and only response to my entire post
was:

Reany's only return comment:
You seem to want to develop metaphysical beliefs
about the world which, although you can never prove
them using the methods of science, you want to treat
them as absolute truths anyway. I simply deny you
that as being scientific. Hold your beliefs as
natural philosophic, rather than scientific, and I
have no objection to that.

O'Barr comments:
You can have no objections to anything, Reany!
Your above 7 line return comment simply will not
do. You are the one not doing science, not me. The
purpose of science, as I gave it, is determined by
man, not by tests. I am free to state the purpose of
science with no other support needed. But what you
are doing, saying that there is no reality, or that
reality cannot be known, these are being presented by
you as scientific statements,

Is everyone on this NG so damn completely ignorant of philosophy as to
not be able to distinguish philosophical claims from scientific
claims? I NEVER said that my statements were "scientific." Of course
they're not!

[snip]

I didn't say there there is no reality or that reality can't be known.
But if you want to make claims about what you know about reality,
you'll need two things first: 1) a definition of reality, and 2) an
epistemology that justifies all your claims as to how you know what is
reality.

Patrick