From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 21 2003 - 17:31:44 EDT
Eyeballs? With or without the "I"?
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
To: <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Cc: <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; <hvantill@chartermi.net>;
<gmurphy@raex.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: ID science (subtopic 2)
>
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:54:08 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
> <alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:
> > A purely physical device is one that is purely material and is, for
> > instance, devoid of life, self-consciousness, and lacks the ability
> > to
> > reason. One must distinguish between the data that makes up the
> > subject
> > matter of science and the intelligent being that set up the physical
> > equipment that collects the data and, subsequently, analyzes the
> > collected data and devolves mathematical models and theories that
> > correlate a multitude of data.
> >
> > Moorad
> >
> Moorad,
> If I take your claim seriously, then a scientist does not look or record.
> About as simple a mechanical device as I can think of is a meter stick. I
> have never known one to line itself up and declare the length. We now
> have recording devices that collect immense amounts of data and analyze
> it so that the limited human inputs and analytical powers can hope to
> understand what is going on. But one may look at this as speeding up what
> used to involve a person eyeballing a galvanometer or cloud chamber--and
> possibly looking again to be sure of getting the reading right. Do
> eyeballs fall under "purely physical device"?
> Dave
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 22 2003 - 03:33:21 EDT