Replies

Thank you for your replies!

In post 1919 you said: "As to the proof: It is not faith if the proof is possible, even if the philosophy prof marks up the paper so it bleeds."

But in post 1923 you said: "Radical. Science is the body of peer-reviewed published work. Perhaps science is a passing fad, but this would grease the skids."

Er, I cannot reconcile these two statements. If your "proof" were possible even though it was rejected by the authorities, you still wouldn't want it published in an outlet for rejected papers even though you consider it a "proof"?

We, or life, would naturally occur in places where we, or life, is possible. We would not naturally be where our existence is not possible.

Evidently you do not believe this is a statement of faith, i.e. metaphysical naturalism. But the object of the belief is nature itself, i.e. that "reality (all that there is) is that which occurs in nature".

IOW, the appeal to the anthropic principle in lieu of a scientific or mathematically plausible explanation is tantamount to asserting the metaphysical naturalist "religion".

It is precisely the same kind of argument as "God did it" - only in this case "nature did it".

Science is the body of peer-reviewed published work.

And the Medieval Religion, the Holy Church of Rome, was exactly that too.

That definiton of "science" is your own and very limited.

Galileo, for example, found himself not a peer, yet reviewed very harshly by peers. What if those peers had succeeded?

It is folly to seperate "religion" from science. There are many follies -- confusing the acceptability of hard expertimentally proved theory with idle or near-idle spiritual speculation is also folly.

Full knowledge of life and reality includes philosophy, "religion", hard science, math, logic, even soft science like evolutionary theory or creation theory. It is wise to include G-d knowledge when that knowledge can be shown to have a reliable chain-of-custody, and spiritiual inferences that can be arrived at by logic, hard science and math, or by deduction from reliable chain-of-custody revelation.

The main stream media (MSM) met and fell to the internet, the WWW browser, the forums such as this and the blogs. The light of Truth was redsicovered -- it had been hidden under a heavy mantle of pre-digested comfortable pablum served up twice a day at regular times by the media. Such feedings had trained adults to be baby-like, there were many Santa Clauses and Tinkerbelles. They are not quite eradicated either. Yet the light of Democracy of and Book and Quill open before all, are driving them off thr stage of history. Next Act!

And so too "science" -- that "science" exactly as you defined. Institutionalized science is the modern version of the Medeival High Church of Rome. It may well fall -- as you called it!

Will it -- in its lengthly throes of death -- parallel the Church's decline? Will we have an Inquisition? Are we having one?

the Feds to collect and publish articles which were previously rejected for content

Radical. Science is the body of peer-reviewed published work. Perhaps science is a passing fad, but this would grease the skids.

How about Annals of Improbable Research which IIRC was formerly known as Journal of Irreproducible Results

/grin

Cheers!