On the other hand, Lion (that is your given name?) does a pretty fair job
literarily, and the end purpose of science might necessarily be: To convince, and
thereby change the course of the world. (Of course to accomplish the latter,
one's science must not only be convincing but be grounded in fact).
It's hard for me to believe that anyone who believes in science perceives the
world as travelling in the right direction on the the basis of it, in general
terms. (no intention meant to belittle any real progress being made on diverse
and discrete fronts).
"Science", will never create a fruit tree, nor is it's purpose to do so; but
rather to support the tree's own nature through proper husbandry based on careful
study (and the knowledge that brings) of natural cycles.
Lion: Once again - I am NOT disagreeing with you. But I will leave it to YOU to
discern the area(s) of coincidence and convergence, for now. I admit to making
little effort to fit my reply with the framework you're apparently presupposing.
Instead, I'm fitting that within another but related one.
The problem with turning "science" around on itself in this way is that it makes
as much sense as some of the columns appearing at the end of Scientific American,
monthly. Interesting anecdotes, without much demand for follow up - nor is there
an appeal for one (and the writers are probably well paid enough, anyway).
I think real change will come about through real offers of real and available
products or methods, capable of enhancing the quality of life of those
Lion, you have kindly supplied us with a goodly morsel of (I presume accurate)
statistics below and I will submit here an interesting bit of information myself:
1).- I have been eating a good number of mangos lately, buying a 70 lb box a
week. 2).- Multiple trailer loads (if pushed I could tell you how many) of
mangoes cross daily at Nogales and South Texas (not to mention Miami); and 3).-
Not one of the thousands of boxes making up each load fits my discription of life
giving or even fit to eat. They all contain mangoes substantially different in
nature from those in the box I've bought each week for the last month and a half.
In other words, **none** of the type of mango **I** eat crosses the border, and
**none** of what DOES cross the border, fits my criteria of "fit to eat".
Why is that? Science didn't ask the right questions, and the wrong goals were
subscribed to and fulfilled. This doesn't make science good or bad. It makes
certain people either ignorant, mislead or just plain foolish. (And whether
someone is making money on this or not is irrelevent to this issue).
In short, using scientific methods to show undesirable inconsistencies that may be
inherent in the results of what is happening in the world is fine, but doesn't
diminish the importance of providing better and accessable alternatives.
Lastly, I'm going to take the liberty of not resending Lion's earlier
contribution, since I'm sure that all of you have already read it with interest,
as I did; none of which I disagreed with.
-- Douglas M. Hinds Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO e-mail: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".