From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #283
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume00/283
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------"
To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
Reply-To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
------------------------------
Content-Type: text/plain
blakes7-d Digest Volume 00 : Issue 283
Today's Topics:
Re: [B7L] Re: Avon & the kitchen [ "J MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.co ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.con ]
Re: [B7L] Avon (was: Rumours of Deat [ Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@comp ]
[B7L] Orac loves chocolate? (Slightl [ Mistral <mistral@centurytel.net> ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ Tavia Chalcraft <tavia@btinternet.c ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ Tavia Chalcraft <tavia@btinternet.c ]
Re: [B7L] Food [ Tavia Chalcraft <tavia@btinternet.c ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana. ]
Re: Re [B7L] Fantasy, SF and all tha [ mistral@centurytel.net ]
Science (was Re: [B7L] Fantasy) [ mistral@centurytel.net ]
Re: [B7L] Re:Avon & the kitchen [ mistral@centurytel.net ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ mistral@centurytel.net ]
Re: [B7L] Avon (was: Rumours of Deat [ "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com> ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com> ]
Re: [B7L] Owning Liberator [ "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com> ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ Iain Coleman <ijc@bas.ac.uk> ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ Iain Coleman <ijc@bas.ac.uk> ]
[B7L] To whom it may concern [ Natasa Tucev <tucev@tesla.rcub.bg.a ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ mistral@centurytel.net ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ Iain Coleman <ijc@bas.ac.uk> ]
Re [B7L] Fantasy, SF and all that st [ "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com ]
[B7L] Out of the dome [ Jacqui Speel <jacquispeel@netscape. ]
[B7L] Christmas presents [ Jacqui Speel <jacquispeel@netscape. ]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 19:55:20 EST
From: "J MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Avon & the kitchen
Message-ID: <F44NPPzQT456UnHAaaz0000c1d6@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>From: "Marian de Haan"
>In respons to my:
> >>OTOH that hearty bite into the apple always feels a bit out of character
>to me, I don't know why.<<
>Mistral wrote:
> >What, you never curled up with an apple and a good book?<
>Actually, no :-)
Chocolate's better <grin>
Regards
Joanne
(typing with one hand, due to a pinched nerve - what a way to start a week's
annual leave)
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:52:21 +0100
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <02df01c031d6$a147e620$0d01a8c0@codex>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Iain:
> I'm curious: how many of the people banging on about what science is have
actually done any honest-to-God science?
No. Doesn't stop me having an opinion, alas.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 06:17:38 -0400
From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon (was: Rumours of Death question)
Message-ID: <200010090617_MC2-B635-E046@compuserve.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Dana wrote:
>I think the Federation has obligatory National
> Service, preceded by obligatory Patrol Scouts, =
>so I presume everyone has been taught how to
>make campfires, kill and gut giant-icky-grub-thingies,
> etc.--although I'm sure certain elements forgot =
>that VERY quickly.
Either this is only for actual grunts (or officers), or everyone who isn'=
t
going to be a grunt is brainwashed afterwards - Blake and the Varons make=
it clear that nice middle-class people aren't used to the countryside.
Harriet
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:22:27 -0700
From: Mistral <mistral@centurytel.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Orac loves chocolate? (Slightly OT)
Message-ID: <39E2EDE3.2F31D4CD@centurytel.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Joanne ought to like this.
>From the October 2000 issue of Prevention magazine:
'In tests using the "gold standard" for measuring antioxidants - the
ORAC test - chocolate actually comes out ahead of the former antioxidant
champs: tea, Concord grape juice, and blueberries.'
Antioxidant 'megastars' listed by point value:
5,765 Dark chocolate bar (1.55 oz.)
2,962 Milk chocolate bar (1.55 oz.)
2,608 Concord grape juice (6 oz.)
2,125 Hot cocoa (1/2 Tbsp. cocoa powder, 1 Tbsp. sugar, 1 cup fat free
milk)
1,854 Black tea (1 tea bag, brewed)
1,740 Blueberries (1/2 cup)
1,628 Green tea (1 tea bag, brewed)
The article does go on to caution against overindulgence; but I think
it's safe to say that eating chocolate is an Orac-approved activity. Now
isn't that good to know? <eg>
Mistral
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 11:28:03 +0100
From: Tavia Chalcraft <tavia@btinternet.com>
To: 'Lysator mailing list' <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <01C031E3.FF420D70.tavia@btinternet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Natasa wrote...
>what's
>much worse, by leading us to believe that it is only our intellect which
>needs to be satisfied, science dissociates us from the world.
And Julia disagreed rather strenously. I feel I must stand up in support
for Julia. I find that there's no greater sense of awe for the natural
world to be had than from scientific exploration. You feel that bubble of
enthusiasm/love/awe in the authors when re-reading some of the truly great
papers (the Watson&Crick DNA structure in Nature springs to mind in my
field but there are plenty of others).
Julia wrote:
>One of the problems I have with hard core Christian fundamentalists (no,
>I do *not* mean anyone on this list) is their insistence that this
>little world is all there is, that God created the world in seven days
>some four thousand years ago. I can't understand how people would rather
>have that than the grandeur and glory of the universe I know as an
>amateur astronomer. A Creator responsible for *that* is a damn sight
>more impressive than a patriarchal figure in a long white shirt.
I was briefly a fundamentalist Christian, and a Christian friend once asked
me, as a scientist, to give a lecture on 'creation theory'. I refused, of
course, but spent some time trying to explain the concept of 'metaphor' to
this person...
Tavia
--When the fire and the rose are one
http://www.viragene.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 11:42:17 +0100
From: Tavia Chalcraft <tavia@btinternet.com>
To: 'Lysator mailing list' <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <01C031E6.0389DE60.tavia@btinternet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Iain asked:
>I'm curious: how many of the people banging on about what science is have
actually done any honest-to-God science?
FWIW, my degree is in 'natural science' and I've done post-grad work in
molecular biology (tho' I admit that's still in the stamp-collecting stage)
and now attempt to draw valid conclusions from data amassed in randomised
clinical trials, which is about as close to scientific experiments as one
gets in medicine.
Tavia
--When the fire and the rose are one
http://www.viragene.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:16:49 +0100
From: Tavia Chalcraft <tavia@btinternet.com>
To: 'Lysator mailing list' <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Food
Message-ID: <01C03214.BA604560.tavia@btinternet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sally wrote:
> Which of course reminds us of one more of the horrors of Life Under the
> Federation Jackboot (as shown in Moloch) ... ***ersatz coffee!!!!*
Isn't this just another feature that B7 stole from '1984' ?
Tavia
http://www.viragene.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 23:08:05 +1100
From: Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>
To: "Blake's 7 list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <20001009230805.A9799@welkin.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:28:23AM +0100, Iain J. Coleman wrote:
>
> >>> Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk> 10/07/00 09:36PM >>>
> >
> >What a load of bollocks.
>
> Thanks, Julia: you put it a lot more politely than I would have.
>
> I'm curious: how many of the people banging on about what science is
> have actually done any honest-to-God science?
Moi.
No, I'm not a PhD, merely a Bachelor of Science, but my major was
originally in Chemistry before I changed to Comp. Sci.
I *have* "done science".
But even if I hadn't, that doesn't mean that I'm incapable of
understanding what it is, or that I'm not allowed to comment on it!
Since when is "What a load of bollocks" a reasoned argument?
(Kathryn raises haughty eyebrow)
I am *not* saying that science isn't fascinating, and things out there
to be discovered aren't fun, enlightening, exciting or things like
that. It just isn't *everything*.
Think we should take this spin-ward, folks?
Kathryn Andersen
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It is quite futile to argue that man is small compared to the cosmos;
for man was always small compared to the nearest tree.
-- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
--
_--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen <kat@foobox.net>
/ \ | <http://www.foobox.net/~kat>
\_.--.*/ | <http://angelcities.com/members/rubykat>
v | #include "standard/disclaimer.h"
------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere
Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 08:23:34 -0700
From: mistral@centurytel.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Fantasy, SF and all that stuff
Message-ID: <39E1E2F5.6AEE172C@centurytel.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil Faulkner wrote:
> Mistral:
> <I'd have said SF has given up, and it's fantasy that encourages a sense of
> wonder. Or, more particularly I'd say that SF _tends_ to the view that
> physical reality is all there is, and fantasy _tends_ to the view that there
> is something more. Since I do believe that the physical world is just an
> overlay on top of a deeper Reality, fantasy strikes me more as an attempt to
> pierce the veil rather than to deny the integrity ('holiness') of reality. >
>
> I'd rather say that SF tends to the view that physical reality is all there
> needs to be, and you can get more than enough sense of wonder from that.
> Fantasy reflects a need for something more.
Redundant. If physical reality is all there is, that's all there needs to be.
If not, then not. And as Alison says, too important to mess about with.
(I could point out, if physical reality is all there is, there doesn't *need*
to be *anything*.)
> Is that because there is
> genuinely something missing? Or because the real world has not been
> appropriately viewed, comprehended and appreciated?
Mm. When I feel most in touch with the spiritual is when I appreciate
the real world the most - but then, I would. It would be interesting to
poll a group of people who didn't believe in more, and now do.
The nearly universal desire to believe in something more strikes me as
the best evidence that there is more; that, and the level of order and
detail in the universe. (OTOH, if I weren't inclined to believe in something
more, I'd argue that we perceive order in the system only because we're
a product of it.) ;-)
Storytelling (SF, F, or any other type) is at its most basic an attempt to
make sense out of our lives; anything with a plot participates in that
process. Stories are maps of the storyteller's internal terrain; an attempt
to discern the patterns of reality - whether the writer is aware of it or
not. So when we talk about a genre tending this or that way, we're really
talking about the nature of the people who are drawn to writing it. Is it
too obvious to point out that as writers move in and out of the genre, its
nature will change as a result?
> Whether or not there is a 'Deeper Reality' in a mystical sense I can't and
> don't presume to say, but I don't believe in one. (Whaddayamean, you
> guessed?) A wider reality is something else altogether.
Hm, and I had you pegged as some sort of transcendental mystic.
No, really. Honest. Would I lie to you?
Please clarify 'wider reality' just to be sure I'm following you -
are you referring again to "because the real world has not been
appropriately viewed, comprehended and appreciated?"
> <Or, SF as analysis, fantasy as synthesis. Or mind vs. spirit; or the
> external world vs. the internal.>
>
> It has been my experience that the scientifically minded tend to relate
> themselves to the world, whereas the spiritually minded tend to relate the
> world to themselves.
Hee. That's the insignificant vs. important coming into play again;
not only do I not find them mutually exclusive, I find them both
necessary. (And your scientific/spiritual dichotomy is artificial and
misleading - there are many well-qualified scientists of many faiths.
Which category would you put Einstein in, for instance?)
<snip>
> Importance is not a truth, merely a matter of
> opinion.
Unless of course there's Something Else - an absolute standard.
I'm not saying that to be argumentative, just to point out that bar
an external absolute, *everything* is an opinion.
> <Science "denies that one can achieve a mystical union" because science is
> limited in what it can encompass, what it can investigate. Science can only
> look at the natural world, not the supernatural world. It *has* to deny the
> supernatural, that is its nature. >
>
> That I have to disagree with. Science rejects unqualified belief in the
> supernatural, not the supernatural itself. It is a goal of science to bring
> the supernatural within the bounds of the natural (or to expand the bounds
> of the natural to encompass the supernatural, whichever seems more
> appropriate to the truth), to explain the inexplicable and understand the
> incomprehensible. As good scientists (not that all scientists are good
> ones, of course), they cannot deliver a final verdict: either the
> supernatural is something natural that hasn't been explained yet (and might
> never be), or it doesn't exist at all, but personal opinions aside it would
> be rash to say which.
Sometimes he shows distinct signs of.... reasonableness.
Good scientists, yes. There are far too few of those, particularly in
positions to disseminate information to the mass media and educational
system (at least in the US).
> The
> Federation, like the Daleks, are just Bad Dudes who do Awful Things. Blake
> fights them, so he's the Good Guy. We're on his side, so we're good guys
> too. We're against the Federation.
<Mistral raises hand> Ooh! Ooh! If I'm not on Blake's side, does
that mean *I* get to be subversive? Can I, huh, huh?
But back to the topic - do I take it that you consider B7 science
fiction? Based on what, the setting? Because the story really
doesn't require any of the futuristic trappings - it doesn't fit the
definition I was taught of science fiction in school. Closer to
fantasy-adventure, actually. Robin Hood in outer space - I always
thought Blake's and Tarrant's clothes drew the parallel deliberately.
Has an SF ep here and there, but the overall arc, no. IMO.
Mistral
(Okay, who's been scribbling on my internal map of reality?)
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 09:44:58 -0700
From: mistral@centurytel.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Cc: spin <b7spin@metva.com.au>
Subject: Science (was Re: [B7L] Fantasy)
Message-ID: <39E1F609.B414DEE9@centurytel.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Copied to spin list - this is now I think too far OT
Julia Jones wrote:
> In message <39DDCF58.298B172@centurytel.net>, mistral@centurytel.net
> writes
> >Oh, very well said. I agree 98%; however one should be aware of the
> >basic assumption that underlies your argument - that science has the
> >capability to investigate everything that exists; that the physical world
> >is the total sum of existence.
>
> Science does indeed have the capability to investigate everything that
> exists. That's what science *is*. A way of looking at the universe that
> says one can try to understand how it works. It does not make any claims
> to be able to ultimately *know* everything that is, and indeed the
> philosophy of science says that this is not possible. (No, I'm not going
> through the details - just reading those guys makes my head hurt.)
>
> Nor does science say that the physical world is the total sum of
> existence - just that the physical world is that part of existence which
> science deals with.
Okay, I'm genuinely puzzled - *not* arguing Julia, but one of us is
misunderstanding the other, and yes, it's probably me, so please be
patient. (In fact I'm so puzzled I don't know how to approach a
clarification).
I *thought* that what I was saying was the same thing you said
in your second paragraph - that science only deals with the physical
plane.
Therefore my conclusion is that *if* there's a non-physical plane,
not made up of matter, and not following any of the laws of the
physical plane, science will not be able to investigate it; at least not
science as we currently know and define it.
How would you set up experiments? At the very best, it would be
like a black box - you could possibly find a way to make input and
receive output, but you could never see the workings inside; and
since there would be no way to know what laws were followed
inside the box, no way to interpret the output. We don't have the
tools to measure a non-physical realm, because we inhabit a
physical one - the best analogy I can think of (though badly flawed)
is fish in an aquarium trying to investigate the ocean. They could
postulate an ocean, but they could not investigate it scientifically,
because they wouldn't have the tools, nor the resources within
the aquarium to develop those tools.
> Both of the assumptions that you claim underlie Alison's argument are
> made mainly by non-scientists, although admittedly you do get the
> occasional plonker of a scientist making them as well.
I hope you're right. Possibly it's primarily those disseminating
information who are at fault, and not those doing the research.
I'd like to believe that. However, I have met several of those
plonker scientists.
It would be disingenuous to assert that a scientist's world view
doesn't affect his research, however. I did read a blurb about
a study that demonstrated that it was statistically likely for a
study to return the expected results, even in a double-blind and
_no matter which results were expected_.
> Incidentally, I regard Una's work as qualifying as science, whereas I'd
> consider a lot of her colleagues to be using the word "science" to try
> and give spurious validity to their personal prejudices. This is not
> because she's a list-sib and therefore an ok person, it's because she
> applies scientific methodology.
Sure, it's the methodology that counts most. I'm very partial to
scientific investigation; please don't think I disregard it just because
I don't think it's universally applicable.
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 09:53:05 -0700
From: mistral@centurytel.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re:Avon & the kitchen
Message-ID: <39E1F7F0.AFE6D30@centurytel.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Marian de Haan wrote:
> >I thought >all good little NTs did that in childhood on a regular basis.<
>
> Maybe I'd better not ask what a NT is?
Intuitive Thinker. In this case, a baby scientist (by nature, not
profession.)
> This scene always lands me with an irreverent vision of a certain happening
> in Paradise with the roles reversed: Eve advocating caution and Adam biting
> in the apple just to spite her :-)
Oh dear. That whole sequence was already one of my favourites.
I'll never be able to watch it with a straight face again.
> I find it touching how much faith this man who trusts no-one can have in
> technology. He seems absolutely convinced that no harm will become him.
> Apparently fairy tales are out of fashion in the Federation - no "Snow
> white" to teach him the danger of biting into strange apples :-)
Fairy tales are too close to myth which is too close to religion;
I have wondered if there's actually any fiction allowed at all,
other than deliberate propaganda.
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:00:28 -0700
From: mistral@centurytel.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <39E1F9AB.BC152A74@centurytel.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Iain wrote:
> I'm curious: how many of the people banging on about what science is have actually done any honest-to-God science?
Not since school, that I can recall; will you be wanting the
transcripts, then?
Please remember to post your qualifications before giving an
opinion on music, teaching, or accounting; I _have_ done those.
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:03:54 -0400
From: "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet.att.net>
To: "B7 List" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon (was: Rumours of Death question)
Message-ID: <00d901c03214$4f33bf60$37614e0c@dshilling>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mistral said:
>
> Doesn't quite square for me with living in domes and it being a crime
> to go outside -
It's a crime to go outside when YOU want to go, mandatory to go
when they send you.
-(Y)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:07:09 -0600
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <20001009.110711.-76051.3.rilliara@juno.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:28:23 +0100 "Iain J. Coleman"
<IJC@pcmail.nerc-bas.ac.uk> writes:
>
>
> >>> Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk> 10/07/00 09:36PM
> >>>
> >
> >What a load of bollocks.
>
> Thanks, Julia: you put it a lot more politely than I would have.
>
> I'm curious: how many of the people banging on about what science is
> have actually done any honest-to-God science?
>
Done enough, do enough, and keep up on it enough that I feel reasonable
confidence in my views on it without feeling pressure to change them.
It's an extraordinarily useful tool that does a great deal to increase
our understanding of the physical world.
Without getting all tedious again, let me just say that I agree with that
Lewis quote (which said pretty much what I'd wanted to earlier only
better and briefer), "Even in your
world, my son, that is not what a star is but only what it is made of."
That's the hard sciences, which are what I assume we've been discussing.
The soft sciences are, I admit, a whole different ball game. As Fiona
said, anthropology is about as metaphysical as you can get.
Ellynne
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:43:35 -0600
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <20001009.110711.-76051.4.rilliara@juno.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Julia wrote:
>
> >One of the problems I have with hard core Christian fundamentalists
> (no,
> >I do *not* mean anyone on this list) is their insistence that this
> >little world is all there is, that God created the world in seven
> days
> >some four thousand years ago. I can't understand how people would
> rather
> >have that than the grandeur and glory of the universe I know as an
> >amateur astronomer. A Creator responsible for *that* is a damn
> sight
> >more impressive than a patriarchal figure in a long white shirt.
> >
Now, now, no straw man arguments. Most scripture is remarkably reticent
on what God wears (specific references to him wearing red are considered,
in context, symbolic [it can represent royalty or blood (His, usually
[but I guess not necessarily])]). Many people who take the Genesis
account seriously also hold that six creative _periods_ are described,
culminating in events six thousand years ago.
In the interpretation I go with, that's events pertinent to our little
planet over the six thousand (or so) years since. I have my own opinions
on events previous, some of which may be wrong and some of which I admit
include phrases like 'I don't know.' I also admit I don't have a problem
with this. It's like (since this is where it started) science. I am
sure enough in what I do know that the parts I don't aren't blowing me
out of the water.
Whew. However, since my church has an official position on the rest of
the universe (dating back from 1832) I thought I might quote it, just to
let you know (the 'him' referred to being God).
"That by him, and through him, and of him, the words are and were
created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto
God." (Doctrine and Covenants 76:24).
Which (Ob B7) would make another reason for the Federation to repress
religion. Any faith with an official stance on this kind of nonTerran
equality would not go over well with their Earth first attitude.
Ellynne
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 11:07:10 -0600
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Owning Liberator
Message-ID: <20001009.110711.-76051.5.rilliara@juno.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Just adding a couple more thoughts on this thread.
If Avon came from the System, etc, and had something to do with
designing/creating the Liberator, the odd way he took over the London's
systems makes a little more sense. I'm still working on motive and all
that, but it suggests a background where he could have (directly or
indirectly) managed to have a few 'extra' fittings attached to at least
one Federation ship. Then, instead of breaking into the computers and so
on, he only needed to activate the system already installed.
Another interesting point. Of the people who wind up on Liberator from
the London, two definitly had had their brains tampered with (Blake and
Gan). Vila claims to have had it happen but, like Blake, shook off the
conditioning. Jenna, who isn't overly talkative, never says she
_hasn't_. At worst, we're looking at 40%, possibly 60%, with status on
the remaining 40% unknown. If Avon _was_ from the system, a certain
amount of previous mental conditioning might have been an issue for him
(example: maybe the System kept one of their number one system designers
from being a threat by deleting certain parts of past assignments from
his memory - and he would want to get it back). How better to do test
runs than on people who'd had the same kind of treatment? Hence, within
a narrow window of time, Blake recovers his memory, Vila throws off his
anti-theft conditioning, and even Gan manages to fight without triggering
his limitor. Jenna, we know, manages to turn down the request of a
Terranostra member who specialized in mind altering drugs (since he
tossed in extras, like radioctive tracer elements, I assume he payed
attention to what the drugs did and used them to manipulate people rather
than just supply them [it's thin, but we have to create what evidence we
can] in a way that pushed him into getting her caught, possibly because
her response _frightened_ him [as a Terranostra control issue, if Jenna
was being made an example of what happened to the uncooperative, it
should have been generally known that's what happened]).
Then there's elements of the trip itself. An officer, contrary to usual
procedure, has been specifically warned about some things he _can't_ do
to the prisoners (if he can't get willing cooperation from Jenna, then no
hanky-panky). There may be other changes we don't know about.
OK, who on this ship would be most qualified to alter orders or download
blackmail material and use it accordingly?
Still scrambling for _why_ he would do all this, but it begins to hold
together.
As for writing this up, I'm great at generating oddball ideas and typing
long posts. Typing a long story, unfortunately, is another story. I'll
put it on the list of future possibilities, however.
Ellynne
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:29:11 +0100 (BST)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bas.ac.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1001009175634.3474G-100000@bscomp>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> >>> "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com> 10/08/00 07:14AM >>>
>
>
> On Sat, 7 Oct 2000 21:36:32 +0100 Julia Jones
> <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > Science does indeed have the capability to investigate everything
> > that
> > exists. That's what science *is*.
>
> Actually, not quite. It's been a while since I had to write anything
> about Plato's two worlds - spirit/mind and physical - but I think I can
> still summarize the basics.
Dualism has not, historically, proved a terribly useful approach in this
context.
>
> Science deals only with the physical world and it deals with it in a
> particular way - it asks _how_ something happens.
Not quite. Very often we ask _whether_ something happens, or _why_
something happens. It's true that we don't bother with teleological
explanations any more, but that's because they don't work.
Action-reaction is a
> science style statement. The action was feeling rather blue and put out,
> provoking an annoyed and exasperated reaction is not.
That's because the former type of statement has proved far more useful and
fruitful - even when wrong - than the former.
Kepler developed the current model of the solar system: he also believed
that the structure of the universe must reflect the Platonic solids.
Newton created modern mechanics: he also spent a lot of time on alchemy.
Kepler's laws of planetary motion and Newtonian mechanics survive in
science to this day because they work: Platonism and alchemy have been
discarded because they don't.
You're treating science as though somebody woke up one day and decided
'This is what science will be'. In fact, modern science grew up out of all
kinds of mysticism, by a process of keeping the stuff that worked.
Philosophers now have a devil of a time defining science, because they
like neat definitions of worldviews, and scientists are the ultimate
pragmatists.
This is why
> there's the old riddle about how to prove someone else thinks. You know
> _you_ do but you can't actually prove anyone else does
A question which many scientists approach in a pragmatic fashion, cf the
Turing test.
(it's that old
> math deal about having to prove something works for both k and k+1 before
> you can prove it works for all k+a's
I'm not at all clear how inductive mathematical proof has any bearing on
your previous statement.
[I sometimes wonder how pretensious
> the extremely ecletic collections of trivia I toss into arguments must
> sound. Trivia, alas, remains my gift [politer term than 'neurotic
> compulsion']).
>
> This is not a bash on science. Science is an extremely useful tool but,
> like any tool, its limits need to be recognized. When these limits
> aren't acknowledged you get self-contradictory statements like the ones
> from some of the scientists studying the brain (physical and functional
> elements, I'm not talking psychiatry). They will tell you that they
> don't include thought per se as part of their study because it's
> subjective (Plato's first world [it was Plato, wasn't it? I'd hate to be
> getting mixed up on philosophers]).
>
Some will say that, others won't. So what?
> Then, they go off and explain how thought doesn't exist (you just _think_
> you think) because they've found no evidence of it!
>
This seems an absurd caricature. From my admittedly limited understanding
of this topic, what had been found was that the physiological process of
doing something starts _before_ the subject consciously decides to take
that particular action. It's a thought-provoking result, but it comes out
of empirical testing, not sitting around and playing the definitions game
like a bunch of stoned philosophy freshers.
> And I _wish_ I could drill it into people the part that world view plays
> in these things! I knew a guy who told about dealing with a land
> development issue in the west. One of the people he worked with was a
> Navajo with an afro (it was the 70's) and a wardrobe John Travolta could
> envy. In short, the guy looked about as absorbed into mainstream
> American culture as you could get. For most of the discussions, he
> seemed about as absorbed as you could get. Then, he said, "You know,
> it's wrong for you to kill coyote. He's a god. If you kill him, the
> rains won't come."
>
> Now, a scientist might prove that, if you kill coyote, the prairie dog
> population explodes. They build more burrows, causing errosion, leading
> to drought. Then the scientist gets all excited and tells the Navajos,
> "Hey, you're right! Kill the coyotes, then this and this happens, leading
> to drought."
>
> And they say (slowly and distinctly, the way you do to a small child who
> is obviously missing the point [well, I wouldn't call excessive
> condescension the Navajo style, but this is for translation purposes]),
> "Coyote is a _god_. If you kill Coyote, the rains won't come."
>
> The point being the scientist assumed, once he had a mechanical
> explanation, that the meaning of it all _was_ the mechanical explanation
> _alone_. The Navajo in question might accept it as the explantion of
> _how_ but not for the _why_ that the scientist tagged onto it.
This seems a bit off-beam.
The value of the oh-so-aesthetically-crude mechanistic explanation is that
it can be integrated with a wider body of existing knowledge to provide
real explanatory and predictive power. The 'god' explanation just sits
there on its own. You can't use it to predict anything about the
population balance of prairie dogs and coyotes, or to make inferences
about how to prevent a drought should some disease afflict the coyote
population, and so on. It's like a brick which just sits on its own,
instead of being useful for building a house.
> Well and good. Now, let's look at Darwin. Darwin came along when
> factory mills and various other factors that promoted a mechanistic view
> were firmly entrenched. Factories didn't adapt to the human factor.
> They forced humans to adapt to them, often treating them as nothing more
> than another piece of machinery.
>
> And Darwin produces a creation story that mirrors his environment, a
> mechanistic one with the anthropomorphic (i.e. human) elements stripped
> away
He could have done that perfectly easily sitting in the pub for an
afternoon.
In fact, the development of the theory of natural selection involved a
great deal of detailed empirical study, including a now-famous research
voyage to the Galapagos. The result was an elegant theory which is even
now the cornerstone of biology and which is more successful and better
tested than pretty much any major scientific theory I can think of. This
success is not arbitrary.
Did it even occur to you that Darwin's scientific success was because he
was able to gather the necessary data, and was smart enough to find a
framework for it, rather than because he happened to walk past a factory
from time to time?
> This one of those mindwarping moments. I can't discard Darwin's ideas
> simply because I can see the clear connection between them and his
> environment. But that means I cannot use the world view argument to
> discard other ideas, even if its Babylonian theology (which is not on my
> list of valid belief systems, all the same).
Natural selection works. Babylonian theology doesn't. Easy peasy.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:43:14 +0100 (BST)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bas.ac.uk>
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1001009183747.3474H-100000@bscomp>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 mistral@centurytel.net wrote:
>
>
> Iain wrote:
>
> > I'm curious: how many of the people banging on about what science is have actually done any honest-to-God science?
>
> Not since school, that I can recall; will you be wanting the
> transcripts, then?
>
> Please remember to post your qualifications before giving an
> opinion on music, teaching, or accounting; I _have_ done those.
I put the question out of genuine curiosity. About half the people on the
thread seemd to be posting from some alternate universe in which the word
'science' is used to mean something quite different to the way it's used
here.
Still, in the event of there being a thread on whether Rolf Harris is more
significant than Wagner, whether the ills of the world are caused by
teachers using red pens to correct homework, or whether just picking a
number and adding some zeroes is a useful method of accounting, I will
bear your latter point in mind.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:56:51 +0200
From: Natasa Tucev <tucev@tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] To whom it may concern
Message-Id: <200010091856.UAA09239@Tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I seem to have insulted some people. It wasn't intentional, but it was
certainly reckless of me. Some things I said were very imprecise. Or you may
call them stupid. Apologies.
Natasa
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 12:26:07 -0700
From: mistral@centurytel.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <39E21BCE.2D6EC428@centurytel.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Iain Coleman wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 mistral@centurytel.net wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Iain wrote:
> >
> > > I'm curious: how many of the people banging on about what science is have actually done any honest-to-God science?
> >
> > Not since school, that I can recall; will you be wanting the
> > transcripts, then?
> >
> > Please remember to post your qualifications before giving an
> > opinion on music, teaching, or accounting; I _have_ done those.
>
> I put the question out of genuine curiosity. About half the people on the
> thread seemd to be posting from some alternate universe in which the word
> 'science' is used to mean something quite different to the way it's used
> here.
>
> Still, in the event of there being a thread on whether Rolf Harris is more
> significant than Wagner, whether the ills of the world are caused by
> teachers using red pens to correct homework, or whether just picking a
> number and adding some zeroes is a useful method of accounting, I will
> bear your latter point in mind.
Fair enough; I think it was the 'banging on' which misled me.
However, I did neglect to append the 'winky' on the end of my
reply - I'm afraid Neil's been a bad influence.
Science - in a general sense, I take it to mean the study of the way
the world works. In a more specific sense, scientific methodology -
to make enough observations to form a hypothesis, to formulate a
test or series of tests for that hypothesis, study the resultant data,
and hopefully either discard the hypothesis or eventually refine it
into a theory. If you think I've been taught incorrectly, I'd like to
know how you would define it. Science is very important to me;
roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of my library is made up of science books of
one type or another.
As for Harris vs. Wagner - I can't be bothered with that, music
history is not my field; there are specialties in music as well as in
science, y'know. Now if you want to discuss the relative merits
of rote or scale-building methods of learning chord structure, or
if you need a half-dozen variations on 'Three Blind Mice' by
Wednesday, or someone to organize a musical revue...
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:58:22 +0100 (BST)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bas.ac.uk>
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1001009204434.13126A-100000@bscomp>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 mistral@centurytel.net wrote:
> Science - in a general sense, I take it to mean the study of the way
> the world works. In a more specific sense, scientific methodology -
> to make enough observations to form a hypothesis, to formulate a
> test or series of tests for that hypothesis, study the resultant data,
> and hopefully either discard the hypothesis or eventually refine it
> into a theory. If you think I've been taught incorrectly, I'd like to
> know how you would define it. Science is very important to me;
> roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of my library is made up of science books of
> one type or another.
That's the canonical hypothetico-deductive model of science, and I
wouldn't quibble with it as far as it goes. It's important to realise,
though, that it's an attempt to describe what scientists do, not a recipe
that scientists follow.
If I were to try to capture the essence of science in a nutshell, I'd say
'science is about finding explanations of the world that work'. The bottom
line is whether or not a proposed explanation works, not whether it fits
some dogma. All else being equal, the explanation with the greates
explanatory power is preferred.
All the stuff that people rail about - naturalism, mechanistic theories,
rejection of mysticism and teleology - these are not a priori articles of
faith, they are our best model of how the universe actually functions,
painstakingly carved out over centuries of doubt and struggle. I wish more
people understood this.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:36:21 GMT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re [B7L] Fantasy, SF and all that stuff
Message-ID: <LAW-F27NzPZrIkyPzGN0000dd69@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Mistral wrote:
<Robin Hood in outer space - I always thought Blake's and Tarrant's clothes
drew the parallel deliberately.>
Nononono ... well, yes for Blake. Tarrant's into the Pirate King look (see
Rumours, then think of Pirates of Penzance).
Makes sense, in a space opera ...
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Oct 00 13:37:39 PDT
From: Jacqui Speel <jacquispeel@netscape.net>
To: "B7 List" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Out of the dome
Message-ID: <20001009203739.6825.qmail@www0b.netaddress.usa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What if the Federation 20-25 years ago was less oppressive (assuming that=
most
of the characters are in their 30s-40s: the Blake clone says he is 34. Th=
e
elder Ensor would be mid-70s plus & his son in his mid 40s): take for exa=
mple
the first decades of the USSR, under the NEP and the purges - a matter of=
a
decade or so. There might have been a greater official toleration of livi=
ng
outside the domes of Earth. Besides it would not be suitable for those gr=
oups
expecting to go into Space Academy & exploration etc to end up with
agorophobia (as in Isaac Asimov's Caves of Steel).
"Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Mistral said:
> =
> Doesn't quite square for me with living in domes and it being a crime
> to go outside - =
It's a crime to go outside when YOU want to go, mandatory to go
when they send you.
-(Y)
____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://home=
=2Enetscape.com/webmail
------------------------------
Date: 9 Oct 00 13:42:55 PDT
From: Jacqui Speel <jacquispeel@netscape.net>
To: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>,
<blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Christmas presents
Message-ID: <20001009204255.4135.qmail@ww181.netaddress.usa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As the Christmas decorations start to be sold in the shops, has anyone
considered what the crew of the Liberator would get for their 'end of yea=
r
celebrations'? Here are some ideas
Blake: 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'
Avon: A ZX80 and some hyperinflation banknotes/stamps
Orac: A dust cover, and 'How to play 4 dimensional chess' (anybody wish t=
o
develop the idea?)
Vila: Good Pub Guide, '101 ways to cheat at cards,' Raffles (gentleman th=
ief)
stories
Cally: Advanced Origami and bonsai trees. (I think)
Tarrant and Danya would get volumes from Jane's Military Publishing.
Slave would end up commiserating with Marvin from the Hitchhiker's series=
(who
would end up with the guidebook itself?)
=
____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://home=
=2Enetscape.com/webmail
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #283
**************************************