>>>I sincerely think BD would do best to ground their claims in
>>>measurable units. Otherwise, we're just talking about preferences,
>>>and anyone can be emphatic. Defining the results as well as possible
>>>would be more likely to induce anyone interested to try it on his or
>HL> Point well taken, Douglas. Myself I'm not too sure what measurable
>HL> units to ground things with. What we are dealing with here are
>HL> holistic systems. Patterns. Any tiny fragment of one of these
>HL> holistic patterns reflects the entire pattern.
>Well I was never aware of any measurable results from those things (as
>mentioned), and measurable results simply means that 1).- they can be
>repeated, and 2).- a pattern can be discerned and presented (that's
>the knowing where to look for it part). Then you can measure it.
We're getting philosophical here, but maybe this is the right time to
do so... You might want to expand your conception of reality beyond
those phenomena which can be measured. "If I can't measure it, it
isn't real" one of the foundations of reductionist science which is
currently under question.
Don't you think it is possible to perceive realities qualitatively
instead of quantitatively?
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 05 2000 - 20:00:37 EDT