Re: Common knowledge.
- From: Boikat <boikat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 18, 10:49 am, "nando_rontel...@xxxxxxxxx"
<nando_rontel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Its not the case that scientists have a diiferent knowledge about
choosing than mine, they dont have any knowledge about it of their own
at all, which is demonstrated by the fact that on the newsgroups they
never use the concept of freedom as an explanation for anything.
Because, depending on the context, the term as *you* use it is
meaningless, since you apply the same context to things with mind and
things without mind, like rocks, comets, and so on.
There are a few scientists who describe the origins of life in terms
of a decisionprocess, but these scientists are reviled on the
newsgroups for doing that.
Which in your lexicon means "creationists". They are reviled because
they are not scientists, and ther claims are unsupported religious
claptrap.
Boikat
.
- References:
- Common knowledge.
- From: Dana Tweedy
- Re: Common knowledge.
- From: nando_ronteltap
- Re: Common knowledge.
- From: Reddfrogg
- Re: Common knowledge.
- From: nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Common knowledge.
- From: raven1
- Re: Common knowledge.
- From: nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx
- Common knowledge.
- Prev by Date: Re: Want some info about various not-so-intelligent 'designs'
- Next by Date: Re: Still waiting, Y.O.O.
- Previous by thread: Re: Common knowledge.
- Next by thread: Re: Common knowledge.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|