I'm glad we could agree on a few things. I have only a couple comments in red. Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: JA Bravo! An honest statement containing much with which -- contrary to your suppositions -- I agree. Yes -- it was getting a bit untidy. I'll try to keep my comments on a paragraph by paragraph basis. Paul, I've thought about responding line by line again, but I find it unreadable already now (I did read your responces). So I will respond in general about what my whole point to you has become. I will try to separate a little and add what I take to be your responce so you can have the chance correct me. I am suggesting that whatever you think, is your religion. I think you deny this. I am suggesting that to be religious, has nothing to do with belief in God, but is simply following what you think to be true, or at least following what you are comfortable with and are familiar with. I think you deny this. Yes -- this I do definitely deny. I've already explained why it is necessary to have agreed meanings for words -- I don't think you will have forgotten but somehow you still seem to think you can make a word mean whatever you want it to mean. You cannot -- at least not if you are interested in communicating. I have some interesting non-dictionary definitions which I think have merit but I do not use them in debate directly. However, on occasion -- with explanation -- they can be useful to amplify the impression certain words give. See From Paul Deema Wed Jun 13 15:54:26 2007 in which I explained my understanding of 'honest' to Allen D. Let me expand on this concept. I particularly like this definition of 'perversion' -- "The pre-occupation with one subject to the exclusion of all others." Most people consider perversion to be narrowly confined to particular activities -- which probably should not be explored on this forum -- but this definition widens the meaning to something greater than the dictionary view. For this reason I would avoid using this word in this way. Another is 'faith' " That which allows us to believe what we know is not possible". This has currency on this forum but I do not use it because I see such usage as inflammatory. I recently joined an informal philosophy class and the word 'faith' came up for discussion. The woman who is our mentor, drew attention to the way 'faith' has inextricably become associated with religious practice such that its wider meaning has been largely lost and that its usefulness in the wider context is thus compromised. This is why I decry the use of 'faith' when discussing non-religious issues. I am suggesting that anyone involved in any science is no different than anyone involved in any religion. Some are honest seekers of truth, some pretend to seek truth but simply seek justification, Some just want to be right, some just want to exercise control, some follow blindly whatever they are told, some just follow the motions of their peers without experiencing any real meaning in the motions. Actually everyone is more likely a mixture of those sentiments in different ways at different times. I think you deny all this. Since anything scientific involves people and the way they interact and behave, it will be no different then anything political or religious or whatever grouping of interest or interaction you wish to choose. You cannot exempt "science" from the problems found in any other human activity. I think you deny this. Oh! Contrare! These are the two the paragraphs which earned you your 'Bravo!' above. I do make this proviso however. Science relies heavily upon peer review and especially upon successful duplication of reported experiments. This however, is almost totally lacking in religion and politics. Peer review of unproven, unprovable supposition by supporters of the same worldview are meaningless to truth seeking. So much science has nothing to do with testable-repeatable stuff but with interpreting things so they fitt the world-view. And that boils it down to faith. I have no problem calling what I think either faith or confidence. You seem to have a huge problem with calling what you think faith. I don't have a 'huge problem' -- I just object to people lumping scientific practice -- based on verified and verifiable evidence -- in with trust in what other people say with no evidence. When a fact is taken and interpreted according to a world-view and then the interpretation is presented as fact, you are not engaged in "scientific practice" you are engaged in "trust in what other people say with no evidence". The problem is, that if your world-views match, than it would be extremley hard to recognize the difference. You can pick on and point out the failings of religions and religious people all you want, I won't argue the point cause I don't disagree. People everywhere whether religious or scientific or agnostic or atheist or whatever, they all have done and do bad things. We all do. It seems to me that you would deny this. OK -- the count is now three paragraphs. This I also see as a reasonable comment though I would have avoided the use of 'all'. I'll add to this however. I've pointed out previously that I have not directly criticised religion or those who follow such a philosophy, but have pointed out that so many of the criticisms you level at science are equally applicable to religions and those who follow their tenets. My intention was not to indulge in name-calling but to draw attention to weaknesses in your arguments. It seems that since you cannot grasp what I am saying above (or are not honest enough to admit it), it is not possible to debate anything with you, because you always fall back on some kind of "my science thinking is more pure than whatever religious crap is driving what you think". Many people have made many good points to you on this site and you always find a way to simply sweep them away. Well I think the above comments largly nullify your last point here and this is not unique. I will admit that most of my points in the wider debate are where I have differed from the views expressed and I would point out that such differing views tend to be remembered long after the agreements -- especially if they are few in number -- are forgotten. But then I don't comment on everything. I especially avoid commenting adversly, indeed commenting at all, upon things which are opinion ie things which cannot be demonstrated. That said, this is a forum ie a place for debate. Debate involves exploring differences of view. You learn little from a 'discussion' where everyone agrees. For example: I say there is evidence of increased output from the sun that is responsible global warming. The logical possiblities are: A) the suns increased output is responsible for the global warming B) It's partialy responsible C) No increased output, global warming is caused by something else. Your responce ranged from B to C with no consideration of A whatsoever. Why? because you consider your sources of truth to somehow be untainted by the things that taint mine. If you are sufficiently interested to check, you'll find that this is not true. I have admitted that the effect is so small that it is difficult to detect and even more difficult to substantiate -- especially to anyone who is skeptical or who has a barrow to push. I have especially admitted that the Sun's output will be overriding. That said, it is undeniable that Man's activities are directly additive and that there are a number of positive feedback mechanisms. I don't know if you have been exposed to the phenomenon of positive feedback, but it is an action with which you meddle at your peril. The prudent man takes caution, especially if the consequences of failure to do so are dire. This is where I want to hear the evidence that makes it "undeniable" that mans activity is additive and the additive amount equals massive trouble that requires action. You are still dismissing the possiblity that the sun is solely responsible for any meaningfull change in global temperatures. My whole responce since we got started was to point out the fallicy contained in that statement. Everthing I've said in this email is about that. Even if you don't agree, surely you can see how unconvincing you are if thats what you fall back on to defend your point. It's like one of us saying to you "the bible says so". I look forward to your responce, JA Paul D --------------------------------- Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts. Find out more. --------------------------------- Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.