[geocentrism] Re: Geostationary Satellites
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:14:27 +1000
G'day Paul.. I will come back later on the circle diagram etc but this needed
an immediate response.
You said,
"You know, one of the greatest difficulties between the religious and the
scientific camps, is this concept of absolutes vs relatives.
You have broken the camps into two camps as science versus religion. This is
not what we are about here. This is about two science camps. One where science
accepts the metaphysical within its disciplines, a complete philosophy of
science, (which was still dominant in the time of Faraday) and your camp which
has limited science to exclude the supernatural and or para normal which makes
it an incomplete philosophy of science.
You continue,
The religious camp constantly demands absolute clarity, perfect understanding
and complete knowledge from the scientific camp, heaping derision, ridicule and
scorn upon it when this is not forthcoming. "
This surprises me, that you should think this. The scientific camp that springs
from and uses a metaphysical base within its disciplines, that is, including
the existence of God as an axiom of truth, would contradict the basic tenets of
such a faith if they were to be so uncharitable as to heap scorn on those who
sadly do not know or comprehend God.
Isn't it usually the other way? The scientist is scorned if he is a Christian
scientist, and includes this discipline within his research into the truth of a
principle of matter. Does not the camp which you are defending, demand that
things paranormal or metaphysical MUST be excluded as outside of science?
Recently I watched on the SBS network a film showering heaps of scorn on a
scientific foundation founded by real scientists, not religious fanatics, The
Intelligent Design. Foundation.
Where has any person here who has a background in the physical sciences ever
"constantly demanded absolute clarity, perfect understanding and complete
knowledge " of any of the physics subjects discussed. ? Never. We HAVE
demanded that any physical examination to understand an operation must include
the totatality of knowledge, which includes those areas of philosophy which you
not only deny, but refuse them as allowable within the discussion. "Not
Science!"
Take the aether for example. We have debated the MYSTERY of its composition and
action, far removed from the clarity and "perfect understanding" you claim we
demand. Where we are ready to consider the aether a necessity within our frame
of reference, to an explanation of many physical phenomena, it is yourself who
demands "absolute clarity, perfect understanding and complete knowledge".
Why?
Philip.
Other related posts:
