Fairy tales for adults

Jochen Schroeder jschrod at uni-muenster.de
Thu Feb 13 09:04:02 PST 2003

Am Don, 2003-02-13 um 14.23 schrieb Jeremy Larner:
> Jochen Schroeder wrote:
> > Am Don, 2003-02-13 um 04.16 schrieb Steve Bougerolle:
> > 
> >>On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 05:33, Rob Park wrote:
> > 


> > I really disagree, the scientific way is the _ONLY_ way of thinking.
> > Everybody who tells me, that he doesn't should jumb of a cliff and show
> > me that he doesn't. That is the point, in everyday life everybody
> > behaves scientifically, nobody would touch a hot oven (let's leave SM
> > out of this), because they have strong evidence that they will get
> > burned. Nobody puts water on the stove and not into the fridge to boil
> > it, because they have conducted numerous experiments, showing that water
> > boils when heated and not when frozen. Just when it comes to general
> > discussions, they suddenly say the scientific way isn't the only way of
> > thinking. On the same line, I don't believe anybody who says he is a
> > full sceptic either unless he puts a gun to is head and pulls the
> > trigger, if the gun is just an illusion it won't harm him(mind you there
> > was supposingly an antic sceptic who was let around by his scholars
> > because they were afraid he would walk into a river or of a cliff
> > because he didn't believe in an outer reality)
> > Cheers
> > Jochen
> > 
> > 
> Really, the scientific way isn't the only way to think about things. 
> And actually very few (if anybody) only uses scientific methods to make 
> decisions.  This chiefly comes out when we interact with other people. 
> I don't use scientific methods when I interact with my friends (at least 
> not usually).  I learnt in high school science class that my girlfriend 
> is a collection of random molecules brought together by chance and has 
> no more significance or value than any other human being on the planet 
> (or even from one point of view the sofa sat next to me - less in fact 
> as that at least was designed by an intelligent mind...) but I don't 
> believe it.  I rarely use science in my interactions with her.  A lot of 
> the time I go on hunches, and have no evidence for the way that she will 
> react - sometimes I do, but I ignore it, and it often (ok, ok, sometimes 
> :) ) works.

Well, you still try to use a rather scientific method (if I bring her
flowers she'll be happy). Just because the female mind is to complex for
you to grasp ( ;-) )doesn't mean that you're not trying to predict her
actions and reactions. Also even in social interaction you still use the
basic scientific principle that there is a cause to an action. That's
what a lot of people don't realize, scientific thinking is more basic
then science. Science just lifted scientific thinking onto a higher
level, and made it more methodical. I agree with you, that it is quite
difficult to try to describe human interaction by scientific laws or
similar, it's just to complex, highly nonlinear and to many unknown
variables. Actually I think it's far more difficult to describe a human
relationship than the creation of the universe.



> -- 
> Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
> and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-chat mailing list