virus: Solid as a Rock

Eric Boyd (
Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:51:06 -0500


Brett Lane Robertson <> wrote:

> I assume that you are wise and that I am missing something.
> But, if science wants to have something which is falsifiable,
> then theory cannot provide that. When you say that a thought
> experiment provides an idea for the scientific experiment, I
> see you saying that the philosopher must provide for his own
> undoing. (The psychologist, by the way would be providing for
> his own psychological "complex" such that there is unresolved
> obsession--thought--and compulsion--experiment...assuming here
> that "complex" is the same as a psychological disorder). So
> to be a scientist, the philosopher/psychologist must negate
> himself to death. Here's the problem.

This is exactly what I said in my last message, too -- science is house
which is DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF. *THAT* is why it stands so well. Jesus
once said that you must build your house on the rock if you wish it to
withstand the storm -- he was right, but in this world, the only way to be
sure you HAVE ROCK is to try everything in your power to destroy it. If it
survives, then it's rock, and you can feel safe building on it.

Building on faith, IMO, is like building on sand... at the first sign of
rain, your house begins to sink... but you cannot admit it... so instead
you reinforce your faith, and your house sinks even farther... eventually
you are living BENEATH the ground, and no-one can ever convince you that's