<<your assertions don't strike me as
off-the-wall, just incorrect and sloppy.>>
What if you were to take the positions that the assertions are lucid and
useful, it's just your understanding that is unclear?
[BH]><<A particular issue taken on faith may or may not contradict
scientific
>evidence, that was not the point. The point was that faith and the
>scientific method are polar opposites.>>
>
[RB]>I'm glad to see you share my faith in the scientific method.
>
<<I made a comment about word definitions, you responded as though I made a
value judgement about science. Please try to respond to what I say, not to
a convenient irrelevant straw-man.>>
You are collapsing the distinction between faith and ignorance. Plenty of
smart people have faith, including (and this was my point) YOUR faith in the
scientific method. Science cannot PROVE that the scientific method works. A
Level-2 mind will always have unprovable assumptions taken on faith.
<<No, the difference is that there is no proof of creationism, but the space
shuttle *is* proof that science works, and it's observable.>>
Then I guess the space shuttle Challenger blowing up is proof that science
doesn't work?
If I win the lottery is that proof that my "system" works?
<<I believe the positive assertion was yours, that happiness is the standard
by which we should judge the works of others. The burden of proof is
therefore on you.>>
I said I seek out happy, creative, brilliant people and copy their memes. If
you can see the difference between that and the way you rephrased me, you
will gain plenty of insight into the presuppositions in your own worldview.
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/
Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme"
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/votm.htm
Free newsletter! Visit Meme Central at
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm