Re: Musings on Nasa and the Concept of Truth.

From: Sander Vesik (sander_at_haldjas.folklore.ee)
Date: 08/09/04 

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:38:40 +0000 (UTC)

In sci.space.policy Jonathan <anon@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
> I agree completely. But much of the world fervently believes in
> a personal god. This discovery would show that we are but
> a drop in an ocean of life. It would be a direct challenge to
> fundamentalists and creationists all over the world.

Really? want to give a cite for the "much of the world fervently
believes in a personal god"? Because unless you do some very radical
restrictiuons of what the world is, it does not appear to be anywhere
near truth.

[snip]

>
> The daily paper constantly drips with the blood of such religious
> extremism, we fear sparking more of it with good reason.

Maybe you should move town?

> >
> > Scientific truth is *not* subject to majority vote. On some matters,
> > interpretations abound, but whatever the final facts are, they are
> > independent of wether 51% believe in them, or not.
>
>
> I completely disagree.
>
>
> Truth is that which is unchanging, fixed or predictable. Such as
> the great 'laws' and 'facts' of science.
>
> Please point to me one thing in the universe that is unchanging, fixed
> or predictable. JUST ONE THING!

The rest masses of elemntary particles.

>
> The only 'truth' of the universe is that there is ...no...truth.
> There is only what we believe to be true, and we arrive at those
> 'truths' by consensus.

Bull***.

>
> Jonathan
>
> s
>
        Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++