[MD] BioCentrism: Was Zeno correct?

[118]

Hi Marsha,

I appreciate your sense of the deep-seated nature of Scientism.  I have been
a scientist all my adult career and I rail against its abuse to try to open
up my colleagues to alternate views and conceive of new interpretations of
accumulating data.

What was once magic becomes science and shelved in the library as history.
 It is the leading edge which deals with incantation.  Weak spots are
windows into the unknown.

The scientific process can not be shattered because it is based on common
sense.  What such a process reveals is indeed not shatter-proof, but ever
growing like a tree reaching towards the heavens.  New buds always appear in
the spring, defying the static.  Every now and again a branch dies and falls
to the ground.

I could bring in the Tower of Babel, but you may consider that religious and
an impossible literal human feat described by silly old men reading from
old, well worn books.  Yet, here we are still trying.

Cheers,
Mark


On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:02 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> Adrie,
>
> Although I think that quantum physics represents the West's most
> dynamic, cutting-edge science, what I find most interesting are the
> enigmas, paradoxes and anomalies because they most likely are
> the weak spots that may shatter the deep-seated belief in scientific
> materialism.  Einstein and Hawking have offered ever-changing,
> relational, impermanent intellectual static patterns of value, not the
> Absolute Truth.   Space-time and wormholes are conceptually
> constructed patterns overlaid onto a flow of Dynamic Quality.  So
> citing Anthony citing Einstein and Hawking to bolster your opinion
> that the BioCentrism article was wrong, means what?
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>