Re: No complaint



jonathan wrote:

"don findlay" <don@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9dc5c1c3-b05f-4dee-8ee7-1c52f93a9d8f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



You gotta play the game matey, ..be a team player, .. Exhortations to
be of Independent thought and action is in there, but it's after the
fashion of "improvements" in wet sponges that manufacturers are
continually foisting us in the name of "more value for money". Value
to whom? It's codespeak for the very opposite in benefit to the
consumer. Likewise run a mile whenever you read the opening sentence
of your local science magazine designed to give you confidence:- ..."
Teams of researchers".. "beavering away on the problem of such-and-
such" ..


Emily Dickinson calls them "clerks in counting rooms"
when she talks about the properties of nature and our
'modern' reductionist attempts to unravel them.

And in this blistering attack on reductionist science, she
correctly states the obvious. That the yet to be discovered
uncertainty principle, which she so clearly understood, means
specializing/reducing to part properties is a futile attempt
to detail that which is inherently unknowable.

And she points out that their 'show' easily fools many
due to the fact reductionist science, like all of
mathematics, is designed to be self-consistant
to allow proofs. They worship proof and evidence
as she says they live a life of evidence. Which
only leads them in exactly the wrong direction
from truth and simplicity.

Zigackly! <hic !> Reductionsim v. integration. S'all there is
("integration"). But reductionism is the meat of science - reducing
to 'elemental parts' so that it can be quanitifed. But who gives a
<hic> *** a<hic>bout masturbating numbers when reality is staring
you in the <hic> face?



The worship a method that only leads to ever
increasing piles of data and axioms. So many
increasing so fast, that no one person could
possibly comprehend the totality. And as time
goes by, it only gets worse.


Their height in heaven comforts not,
Their glory nought to me;
'T was best imperfect, as it was;
I 'm finite, I can't see.

The house of supposition,
The glimmering frontier
That skirts the acres of perhaps,
To me shows insecure.

The wealth I had contented me;
If 't was a meaner size,
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow eyes

Better than larger values,
However true their show;
This timid life of evidence
Keeps pleading, "I don't know."

(..&&& .. "Qui sais, ..qui sais, ..qui sais"... &&& )


... What value is confidence when they have no convictions to begin
with? ..when all they can waffle is about the last conference they
went to, ..boldly carrying the latest issue of 'Science-Rag' like a
password.so others would talk to them.


As she said...'insecure' and 'timid'. This is the result
of our modern scientific method of reducing and
specializing. It makes us feel overwhelmed, small
and unable to find meaning.

And in the end modern science will always answer the
big questions, the questions of purpose with the
same answer. As she says "I dont' know".

And the reason is simple. Science cannot accept the
fact that not all is knowable. And in their obsession
to know everything, they take the easy path, the
wrong path towards specializing, that takes them
ever farther from understanding the simplicity
of the universe. As she says.


"But nature is a stranger yet;
The ones that cite her most
Have never passed her haunted house,
Nor simplified her ghost.

To pity those that know her not
Is helped by the regret
That those who know her, know her less
The nearer her they get."

OooOOhhh, ...* Nice * one ! ( Sock it to 'em, Jonathan. )

.

Quantcast