"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...

Daniel Weston wrote:
AllYou continues with his old saw that "the whole notion of reality is
one of absoluteness". This notion of his is philosophically grotesque
and scientifically vacuous. AllYou has now made himself irrelevant.

Just ask Allyou what a drag racer has to do to make
the official clock run slower and he will go away.

Actually, that's such an idiotic question that it's just no worth answering.

To scientists and philosophers of science, the terms natural, physical,
real, and material, are considered synonymous. The terms are generally
used to distinguish science and scientific matters, from that which is
halucinatory, illusional, make believe, theological, delusional,
theoretical and the conceptual. Separating the real from the unreal,
the natural from the supranatural, the actual from the theoretical,
evidence from faith, verification from trust, is the job of science.
This process is so pervasive and continuous, it often passes unnoticed
on a day to day basis. Breathing is also important, but how often do
you consciously think about it? Most scientists and utilizers of the
scientific method, from instinct, training, and experience, avoid the
non-scientific as exampled above, without giving it conscious thought.
The theoretical and the conceptual (free inventions of the human mind),
are important to science, but are not confused with that based upon
evidence and verification.

All of this is so obvious, the question can legitimately be raised as to
why we are even talking about that which is this obvious. It should be
discussed from time to time because some people who write at science
news groups, are confused about these matters. They include the AllYous
and the Patrick Reanys. It also includes those that have had or been
exposed to the philosophy of Solipsism, Nihilism, and Idealism as taught
in fundamentalist seminaries.

To distinguish the difference between the scientific and the non
scientific as mentioned above, we use our senses as interpreted and
utilized by our brain. This carnal and secular process never yields
absolute knowledge. "Absolute" knowledge comes from faiths. The
secular process of science yields statements about nature which come in
all variations of certitude from beyond a reasonable doubt, to a
preponderance, to a scintilla, to a hint, and all based upon the
evidence coming from our human senses and brain. This process works
well enough to enable us to send vehicles to Mars, men to the Moon and
back, invent internets, and do open heart surgery. etc, etc etc.

AllYou's attempt to make some meaningful distinguishment between the
physical and the real, is misguided. His enthusiastic repetition that
science is not about absolutes, is gratuitous and trivial.
His belief that he is thereby saying something profound is misinformed.
My comments above would not even have been made but for the fact that
this ng has many innocent lurkers which might be confused or led astray
by such errant nonsense.

"Daniel Weston" wrote in message
...
To scientists and philosophers of science, the terms natural, physical,
real, and material, are considered synonymous.

How would you know?

AllYou: Why don't you tell us again about how science is not about
reality. Run it up the flag and see if anyone salutes it.

AllYou: Sorry about the misprint. My suggestion was that you run it up
the _flagpole_ and see who salutes it. (i.e. the idea that science is
not about reality).

"Daniel Weston" wrote in message
...
AllYou: Sorry about the misprint. My suggestion was that you run it up
the _flagpole_ and see who salutes it. (i.e. the idea that science is
not about reality).

Every post by you is a misprint.