RE: The story-telling ape (was virus: Logic)

chardin (
Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:15:18 CST+6CDT

> Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 14:08:51 -0500
> To:
> From: Brett Lane Robertson <>
> Subject: RE: The story-telling ape (was virus: Logic)
> Reply-to:

> I certainly
> believe objects exist. It is the "scientific thought process"
> however that I am trying to debunk. (Chardin)
> List,
> While I may be ignoring a lot of what is going on in a post in order
> to find specific answers to specific questions...this is the meat of
> what I was getting at. Chardin is "trying to debunk"--is
> deliberately destroying. Why? She is against the "scientific
> thought process"--not science, not scientists, the process itself.
> Certainly her comments about science are valid points; but, I think
> she is failing to bring this to a conclusion.
> What type of thought process is she proposing to replace the
> scientific ones? What are the benifits of those processes? How can
> she lead others into higher thought processes? I truely feel that
> Chardin is acting out her Karma...she has been debunked for her
> thought processes and is debunking in turn. When she balances her
> Karma, perhaps she will become productive and cooperative instead
> destructive and argumentative.
> Brett
> Returning,
> rBERTS%n
> Rabble Sonnet Retort
> Everyone must row with the oars he has.
> English proverb
No, it is your rose-colored glasses referring to "scientific thought
processes" as thought it is someething that really exists. It
doesn't. Scientists arrive at conclusions in various ways and THEN
very often write up their thought processes in a mean which will be
"accepted", i.e,, they write the outline after the paper. If you
read my long boring quotes from the "Betrayers of the Truth" you
would understand what those authors are trying to get across to you.
The onus is on science to show that it is somehow suprior to other
disciplines for determining the truth. Chardin