vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>dturina@geocities.com (Danijel Turina) wrote:
>>It's a standard deduction vs. induction argument, and induction
>>already won so it's actually nothing to discuss; induction goes from...
>
>Induction is hypothetical.  Deduction should be accepted.  

:)))) Have you ever read Francis Bacon or William Occam? They are the
guys who invented the scientific method as we know it. The deduction
was used in the dark ages, and was called the scholastics. It was an
axiomatic system based on the Bible. Another such system was also used
at the same time by the Moslems, and was based on the Koran. Those
systems were fruitless and prevented any growth, and the science with
the inductive method, which actually gives practical results, replaced
the deductive method. The system based on a scripture was replaced by
a system based on the reality.

>If I
>observe 200 people with blue eyes, does that mean everyone has blue
>eyes.

No, that means that in the observed group the incidence of people with
blue eyes is 100%.

>>So what? That would be a problem if there was a better method around,
>>but there is not.
>
>There is.  You just don't know it.

OK, give me a better method for calculating the mass of a spaceship
traveling at 97% c, and calculating the timespace deviations if it
passes 23 AU from the event horizon of a black hole. I'm sure that
your scripture would give me better data than the scientific physics.
Get a life.

>>I already explained what _is_ the scientific method, I don't intend to
>>repeat.
>
>I already told you I have not observed all the phenomena in the
>physics book or chemistry book; so I have no reason to accept it
>blindly unless you prove everything to me.

I did enough experiments to prove the basic principles; if I didn't do
the experiments, I wasn't calm until I could understand how the
principle could be proven, and could analyze the proof. If you think I
accepted things blindly, you found yourself a wrong guy. But I'm not a
scientist. I just understand the principles of science well enough,
because of my former interests in physics and other scientific
branches. You somehow projected all of your hated archetypes of the
atheistic scientists on me, which makes me laugh, and I like yanking
your chains a bit, just to make you aware of them. 

>>And that is supposed to be the scientific method?
>
>Yes, the Absolute can reveal Himself to the devotee.  It's my own
>experience.

I very much doubt it, judging on your lack of basic human qualities.

>>And your method of verification is...?
>>How do you verify that what is written in SB, actually happened? How
>>do you prove that Pariksit really existed?
>
>As I said, Krsna can reveal to His devotees according to their
>surrender, but you have never tried the process nor read the process.

If the process would result in me becoming more like yourself, I
wouldn't dream of trying it.

>>It is not the reality. It just tries to explain what happens in some
>>cases, and it does it better than any alternative theory.
>
>You don't know admit it.  You are BLINDLY following a bunch of books
>claiming to have proven everything but constantly changing and
>updating.  

No, that's what you're doing, I'm not from that movie. I understood
the principles from the scientific texts, I didn't just believe it,
especially not blindly. I quit blind belief when I was 7 yrs old.

>>Science does not consist of quoting the authorities, that was done in
>>the dark ages and abandoned, since it resulted in total collapse...
>
>Okay, stop quoting that it's been proven and give me the proof so I
>can do it myself.  Unfortunately, you cannot 

No, I can not because you are too ignorant and incompetent to do
anything that would have any scientific merit. How could you prove
anything when you lack the understanding of the theory? That's
impossible. You're the one doomed to the sphere of blind belief,
because you are not capable of understanding the evidence. 
Read Carl Sagan's "Contact". In it, there's a similar situation
described, an argument between Christian fanatics and topmost
physicists.

>because there are
>thousands and thousands of experiments that there isn't enough time to
>do them or verify them.

That's what scientific community is for. Scientists believe each
other; if they don't, they can choose to repeat and verify the
experiments. There are strict merits for publication of the results in
scientific magazines. One scientist doesn't have to _prove_
everything, he has to understand the basic principle that has been
proved by the others, and give his contribution. His contribution is
based on the work of all the others, and proves its validity by its
existence - a scientist who collides protons and antiprotons in an
accelerator is giving his small contribution, but his contribution is
the evidence that electronics works, that the engineers who built the
accelerator knew what they were doing, it proves that Einstein was
right, because if he wasn't, he couldn't grow a particle's mass by
inducing the energy from the EM field into it; it proves many things,
that scientist isn't blindly following, his work is the rock-solid
evidence that everything in science is true, that it works, that it is
based on the real world of facts, and that he can rely on it 100%.
That's what the facts are, and if you can't live with them, I'm sorry
for you and the God you believe in, because it is not the God I know.
Accelerators can't threaten the God I know, because they are built
upon him, founded upon him and maintained by him. Everything the
science really proved as fact is the fact my God created and maintains
in his existence, and he can be reached through all those things. I
pity the small gods who live in the scriptures, and who are threatened
by the existence of the protons.

>>You are following something that you think will bring you somewhere,
>>but it doesn't,...
>
>Speak for yourself.  I know my process works.

I think that it doesn't, and I have you as living evidence.

-- 
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net