The league of (extra)ordinary gentlemen
- Thread starter kaushik
- Start date
ajinkya
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2007
- Messages
- 506
- Points
- 43
Hi Psychotropic,
With due respect, I think you have not understood the complete meaning of my post. I think this has in part to do with how you and I think about religion. I assume you take religion as manifested by today's scenarios, where some self-made "Godmen" try to subjugate the will of people, promising God (a human-personified Superbeing) will take care of them, if they kneel blindly before him. If that is your definition, then I am completely with you and I abhor it as much as you do. However, my view of Religion is broader than this. I think of it as a system that helps humans find peace, purpose and meaning in this turmoil we call Life. And Religion is a system of social thinking which has studied human behaviour en masse for a long time and come up with rules of behaviour which best harmonise society as a whole and drive it forward. That is the broader view of Religion that is exemplified when you read the Gita (or various interpretations of it). I believe the same would be true of Christ's teachings and all successful world religions as well.
Having said that, I will try to answer your points below:
No, I do not claim that the scientific method is false. It is a method, one cannot ascribe truth or falsehood to it. What I have given instances of are "rational, scientific" men, who behaved irrationally and unscientifically, when their hypotheses were questioned. Which means that the scientific method (which I broadly called Science in my post) cannot enforce its disciples to behave scientifically. And that all scientific men are not logical all the time. I put this point because I read some posts (or their tone) exhalting the virtues of logical and rational thinking rather religiously(if I may use the word in this context) , as a panacea to all problems in the world. All I wanted to point out was that it is not. Because scientists are human, first and foremost. I have great respect for Science and use it in my work everyday. I am also open to its limitations.
You have just answered your own query in this sentence. Science is man-made, by which I mean the 'scientific method/approach'. The models which Science uses to describe phenomena are man-made. The real-number line is man-made. Probability theory is man-made. Calculus is man-made. Every foundational tool in Mathematics and Science is man-made. Even today, the meaning of a limit is not understood by many 'logical' thinkers, because it is an extremely non-intuitive concept. At the end, one has to just "feel"...Scientists sometimes call this "intuition". I feel it is another name for a belief... a belief which may have come after studying things over time, but a belief nonetheless. And no different from beliefs that (what you call) religionists have.
I say this from my own experience studying many theorems in Science/Engineering, where the final insight came when i stopped thinking and started "feeling" what the mathematics was telling me. And all mathematics is incomplete because the foundational axioms which any theory is based on are "self-evident truths". Self-evident to whom? I can tell you from personal experience that many of them are not so self-evident! In set theory, axioms sometimes contradict each other. And so men split up the system into objects which obey these "laws" and those which don't.
Godel's hypothesis states that any reasonably complex mathematical system cannot derive it's own axioms and there may be other results which are not derivable using just the rules of inference. In that sense, all mathematics is incomplete. This was a major blow to Hilbert's( I think) program of using pure logic to derive all the relations of the world. Measure theory is another instance of this. Georg Cantor went mad (literally) because he spent his life trying to quantify "infinities" and the leap of imagination required to do this made him fearful of the enormity of the Universe and finally seclusion and madness. Here is a link to a very interesting history of this, a documentary called Dangerous Knowledge:
Philosophy, Physics, Mathematics - ?Dangerous Knowledge?
I think you are taking the literal meaning of this quote without reflecting on the metaphor that he was trying to convey. The ship is a metaphor for the engineering and technical prowess of the West at that time. The East refers to the philosophies and practices of Vedanta/Hinduism that would give direction to all the technological marvels the West was creating. I am not that naive and I am sure Vivekananda was not that foolish to think that the Eastern countries cause winds and weather changes around the world, nor that they somehow provided motive force to actual ships.
I have paraphrased from memory so it is possible Vivekananda's original statement was more concise and clearer. For that, I apologise for any confusion it may have caused.
Thanks for your interesting and pertinent observations.
-Ajinkya.
With due respect, I think you have not understood the complete meaning of my post. I think this has in part to do with how you and I think about religion. I assume you take religion as manifested by today's scenarios, where some self-made "Godmen" try to subjugate the will of people, promising God (a human-personified Superbeing) will take care of them, if they kneel blindly before him. If that is your definition, then I am completely with you and I abhor it as much as you do. However, my view of Religion is broader than this. I think of it as a system that helps humans find peace, purpose and meaning in this turmoil we call Life. And Religion is a system of social thinking which has studied human behaviour en masse for a long time and come up with rules of behaviour which best harmonise society as a whole and drive it forward. That is the broader view of Religion that is exemplified when you read the Gita (or various interpretations of it). I believe the same would be true of Christ's teachings and all successful world religions as well.
Having said that, I will try to answer your points below:
No, I do not claim that the scientific method is false. It is a method, one cannot ascribe truth or falsehood to it. What I have given instances of are "rational, scientific" men, who behaved irrationally and unscientifically, when their hypotheses were questioned. Which means that the scientific method (which I broadly called Science in my post) cannot enforce its disciples to behave scientifically. And that all scientific men are not logical all the time. I put this point because I read some posts (or their tone) exhalting the virtues of logical and rational thinking rather religiously(if I may use the word in this context) , as a panacea to all problems in the world. All I wanted to point out was that it is not. Because scientists are human, first and foremost. I have great respect for Science and use it in my work everyday. I am also open to its limitations.
You have just answered your own query in this sentence. Science is man-made, by which I mean the 'scientific method/approach'. The models which Science uses to describe phenomena are man-made. The real-number line is man-made. Probability theory is man-made. Calculus is man-made. Every foundational tool in Mathematics and Science is man-made. Even today, the meaning of a limit is not understood by many 'logical' thinkers, because it is an extremely non-intuitive concept. At the end, one has to just "feel"...Scientists sometimes call this "intuition". I feel it is another name for a belief... a belief which may have come after studying things over time, but a belief nonetheless. And no different from beliefs that (what you call) religionists have.
I say this from my own experience studying many theorems in Science/Engineering, where the final insight came when i stopped thinking and started "feeling" what the mathematics was telling me. And all mathematics is incomplete because the foundational axioms which any theory is based on are "self-evident truths". Self-evident to whom? I can tell you from personal experience that many of them are not so self-evident! In set theory, axioms sometimes contradict each other. And so men split up the system into objects which obey these "laws" and those which don't.
Godel's hypothesis states that any reasonably complex mathematical system cannot derive it's own axioms and there may be other results which are not derivable using just the rules of inference. In that sense, all mathematics is incomplete. This was a major blow to Hilbert's( I think) program of using pure logic to derive all the relations of the world. Measure theory is another instance of this. Georg Cantor went mad (literally) because he spent his life trying to quantify "infinities" and the leap of imagination required to do this made him fearful of the enormity of the Universe and finally seclusion and madness. Here is a link to a very interesting history of this, a documentary called Dangerous Knowledge:
Philosophy, Physics, Mathematics - ?Dangerous Knowledge?
I will answer this in a separate post so that this one doesn't get too long to read.
I think you are taking the literal meaning of this quote without reflecting on the metaphor that he was trying to convey. The ship is a metaphor for the engineering and technical prowess of the West at that time. The East refers to the philosophies and practices of Vedanta/Hinduism that would give direction to all the technological marvels the West was creating. I am not that naive and I am sure Vivekananda was not that foolish to think that the Eastern countries cause winds and weather changes around the world, nor that they somehow provided motive force to actual ships.
I have paraphrased from memory so it is possible Vivekananda's original statement was more concise and clearer. For that, I apologise for any confusion it may have caused.
Thanks for your interesting and pertinent observations.
-Ajinkya.
Last edited:
Yes you can relax. Suri's turned into a Jain muni if you noticed his avtar pic
He promises not to utter a word going by his new garb ... :lol:
Cheers
my views were quite similar to yours till i read Dawkins, and yes....even now our views are not that different, just that I struggle to give any credence to any supernatural explanation, simply because we don't know better
You guys have successfully roused my curiosity regarding Dawkins and I am surely going to pick his book up next time I visit a bookstore.
And thanks psychotropic.
Are we saying that Darwin's theory of evolution has been indisputably proven in this book 'Greatest show on Earth'. My understanding is that this theory is still only a hypothesis. Nothing more. Scientifically speaking.
Agree that there are things that science cannot grasp. This cannot be construed as a limitation of science. Science is a method, an approach, a search for truth unlike religion which claims to have an answer for everything. I think most such answers propounded by religion are basically retrofitted theories to contain the fear of the unknown.
If something is unknown, then let it be unknown ! Let us not retrofit theories. Retrofitted theories does not bring anymore meaning to life than science. They only give you an illusion of meaning. If illusions satisfy, then I have no arguments.
Let us not confuse spiritually meaningful life with blind faith in some manmade religion. They are not necessarily the same
Square wave - I see I ought to have been clearer. I am not taking the side of the followers of 'intelligent creation' or the religious right wing in general. I am only pointing out to budding rationalists and science fanatics (for the advanced ones might find it difficult to change tack
) that wonder is at the root of science. If wonder were not to be there, then there probably might not have been science. For what is science if not stimulated by curiosity. The unsolved puzzles that we have lying before us are our present wonders. Literally. Lets muse over it. If there are various explanations given to those wonders, then so be it. Are the scientists morally in a position to sit on their high horse and trash everything that is being said? In my honest opinion, no. I guess the best thing then is to go in search of the solution, a rational explanation, if it exists.
And no, this still does not mean that I believe in every wild fantasy given as reason for all the wonders that still exist in the world. But I will not hide that many of the more fantastic explanations hold me in thrall. They rouse my curiosity. Maybe some day some scientist, who unlike me can actually make some intelligent use of his curiosity, will find out everything there is to be found out about some or all of these wonders.
Till then - lets not fight over 'who is superior', when both sides really dont have a real case. Hope this helps.
God knows I agree with you completely, but I certainly want to voice a few comments. I know this will lead to meaningless arguments, but since we gained independence, as a nation we have failed completely in every way.
Take Japan - the Americans bombed them to nothing, felt guilty, and today US is in debt to Japan, and losing in billions every year to Japanese cars, electronics, and a host of other products. Take Singapore. Just 30 years ago the slums of Singapore could compete with Dharavi and win easily. Where are they today? The centre of Asia for shipping and finance. Take Taiwan. from an poor country, they rule the world in Electronics. Take Korea - they are starting to compete with Japan in TVs, automobiles and other areas.
Take India. We have had more than 50 years of independence, a large country, good natural materials, and, the best of all - a huge in-house market. We cannot manufacture enough for ourselves, we cannot create enough food for ourselves, and we certainly cannot create satisfactory infrastructure for our own growth. Some things take time, and we as a nation, do not have foresight at all. We don't build roads, we don't create enough electricity, gas, or any other material needed for comfortable living. We have created a few cities that are badly equipped and bursting at the seams. We have terribly unplanned cities that do not allow our children to play games, live clean, or even travel safely to school and back. At this rate, the cities will only explode into chaos sometime in the future.
As a nation, we have never been able to find out what we are good at. Nor have we made any sustained attempt to create an expertise.
The initial attempts at socialism and public sector left a huge gash on our skin. We have a set of workers who perform well outside the country, but fail miserably back home. In spite of having a billion people we are completely useless in design, invention, or discovery. In spite of a billion people, we have only a few scientists of repute. Even our world famous IITs, are just institutes of technology; not institutions that develop the capacity to invent and discover. Whatever good come out of the IITs and IIMs in any case work for Western organisations, and are completely useless to us.
Can you name one single industry in which we are a world leader and far ahead of every body else? An industry where Indian products/services are in demand worldwide and cloned or copied? An industry where other countries can never catch up? AND, please don't say software.
Cheers
Last edited:
Yes you can relax. Suri's turned into a Jain muni if you noticed his avtar pic
He promises not to utter a word going by his new garb ... :lol:
Cheers
hi gobble,
i always thought that jain munis wore masks for one specific purpose - to prevent the death of micro-organisms and small insects?"
and they sweep the path before them to prevent killing of ants ( a dyson (blower) would be a better bet to prevent shear injury?)- or this
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7287300.html
Last edited:
Yes I pretended you were improvising
A modern muni with a portable VAC !! now thats something :lol:
Cheers
So sad. Yet so true. Blame it on our political system which is just monarchy going by another name. To call it democracy is blasphemy.
I am aware of this situation Venkatji. I was only hitting on the notion that Indians are perceived to have been never capable *historically* and therefore will never be for a long time, while the real handicap lies elsewhere in the modern system. If we could do it until 200 years back we can do it again - we just have to hit the right formula that encompasses social security, healthcare, education and vocational training under a modern instructional method. The old method of young boy being apprentice with a master craftsman is mostly gone except in families that have kept their traditional art alive.
The Europeans Americans and Japs were motivated by overwhelming sense of solidarity after the two wars to unite and rebuild. So many precious lives of young people were lost over the years, it gave them a sense of urgency, focus and (may I call it) a collective spiritual quest and desire to create a rebirth event of sorts. It is a universal human quality that out of a tragedy people find strong motivation and drive to overcome and move ahead. By contrast we have many divergent interest groups in a tug of war and unresolved conflicts that appear to play up everywhere. I guess its not just economic or political decision making that influences but also poor primary education that has the biggest impact. Anyways its to complex a topic to understand fully unless one is a social scientist.
regards
srramanujam
Active Member
Its brave to talk about scientists in this thread. Shouldnt we have social theologists instead?
This is another paradox of south asian religion that i havent been able to fathom. Our religiois belief emphasises personal values is strong, and ignores social values. You have situations where the blackest of money is happily accpeted in the garb of donations by spiritual gurus. They (across faiths) teach abstract philosophy but do not emphasise social values.
A lot of the western world and good parts of oriental world emphasise social values more than personal values.
I can see a bullet coming my way.
Damn it missed!
My use of the word only implied getting an opinion from a cluster of people who would have spend close to a decade studying the problem for a more informed opinion. Not that I believe all the scientists who make pronouncements on civilization based on their interpretations of whatever information they have come across in their life to date. But that should not deter one from a particular approach to understanding a topic should it?
Cheers
marsilians
Well-Known Member
venkat - good points. I think the core issue that impacted us so far and will do so for many years is the notion that we are an agriculture based economy. While I do understand that major benefits are driven by agriculture, we should also have been investing proactively in other industries to sustain us when commodity prices are driven down. Its a cyclical phenemenon and we dont seem to ahve broken out of it. So, from what I see and understand, we should invest in a few areas that will bring us faster benefits and relief than others - services (BPO, technology...), special manufacturing (aircraft, ships, cars...), medicine - we have access to so many types and varieties of drugs and private label is easily available and sold so why not make this the hot bed for producing quality doctors and patients.
Cinema, politics, labour market
No I did not.
the human species has two varieties - males and females.
consider these, and not ardh-naris or hermaphrodites.
Never once, has a female engaged me in a conversation about God, truth, the meaning of life, and the suchlike.
Now,why is that?
THE FEMALES OF THE SPECIES DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT SUCH THINGS?
consider these, and not ardh-naris or hermaphrodites.
Never once, has a female engaged me in a conversation about God, truth, the meaning of life, and the suchlike.
Now,why is that?
THE FEMALES OF THE SPECIES DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT SUCH THINGS?
Hello dear friends,
I could not spend much time in the forum during the last few days and weeks. I have seen a discussion brewing in this thread, but found myself incompetent and seriously out of time at the same time to contribute.
Let me start by saying that my knowledge is very limited in most things in life. I just happen to be a trained musician and a physicist. I have not taken up music as a profession, however, physics is my profession and my field of research is broadly quantum field theories (especially their nonperturbative properties). But physics or science is not really a profession, it cannot be, it's a way of life. Lately, a few posts have perturbed and hurt me which expresses childish views (of course in my very ignorant opinion) on science and also spirituality (I really do not understand the issue of religion very much).
What is the issue here? We have nature around us. We have not created the nature. So who created this universe? Believers would say it's God who created it. A non-believer would oppose it and say something in favor of science. I have never understood the relevance of any of this.
For me the notion of spirituality is a sense of upliftment from this material world we live in. When I sing or listen to music and I am fortunate enough to dig deep in that, there is only one feeling and that is bliss. It is as if one can go deep within oneself and at the same time forget about the self and material existences do not matter any more. Once one is in it, it is actually effortless, just a submission of the self into the music and the music takes you places with layered arrays of ecstasy.
Other people may find the same amount of bliss doing something else.
When one comes down to the real world after such deep involvement, one finds that the self is so little that it is almost inconsequential. The question springs to mind "who am I" in all this? BTW, for me this is a very personal feeling. I suppose when these notions and certain ways of life are preached and institutionalized, it perhaps falls in the territory of of religion. I have not understood religions very well, but I can understand what spirituality is.
But it does NOT answer the question: who created this universe and the nature around us. I think it is an irrelevant question.
Does science answer this question? Is it a relevant question in science? Let's examine.
In my mind, science does not need to be complete and it is not. If it were, it would have been possible for science to answer the above question. I do not think science will ever be able to answer the question who created the universe.
What is science then? What does it do? As far as I understand: it is a way of understanding the nature as it is given to us. For example, let us take a few diverse observations: 1) An apple just fell from the tree, 2) A pendulum displaced slightly from its equilibrium position undulates periodically, 3) planetary motions always follow a particular pre-determined path. All the above apparently unrelated observations are consequences of the Newton's law of gravitation. In this example, science can explain diverse phenomena with an unified notion. This is what I would call a scientific understanding. Is it complete? No way, because I can immediately ask why is the law of gravitation the way it is?
As I have said in the beginning, I have expertise in the area of quantum field theories (QFT). Now, quantum electrodynamics (QED) is an example of a QFT. It's the relativistic quantum theory of electrons and interactions among them by exchange of photons. But the basic premises of the theory is that one needs to put in a few inputs to the theory (like the charge and rest mass of the electron) and everything else is predicted. For example the magnetic moment of the electron has been calculated from this theory to a precision of ten places after the decimal or something like that and experimentally (of course had to be very very precise measurements) it has been found exactly equal to the theoretically calculated number and the experimentalist even won a Nobel prize recognition for it.
But again, can QED explain the charge and the mass of the electron? No. Is it incomplete? Yes. Is it worthless? No, because more than all its horrendously precise predictions about electrons and photons and their technologically successful applications (if any), for me, its is the thinking process, it is the right questions asked and then making a mathematical model of the part of nature in question that works within its region of validity, that is enjoyable.
It's a trial and error process. Many ideas are thrown in, and only a few or one works ultimately and science makes progress if one can call that a progress. Einstein's reluctance to accept quantum physics is one such dilemma that every scientist has to go through and actually goes through. If I happen to be an Einstein, it makes it in story books, for me and thousands of other scientists these dilemmas and many wrong moves are not known to more than a few in our community. And who am I to say Einstein's reluctance is completely unfounded or wrong? Because there exist a lot inconsistency and lack of understanding in the basic foundations of quantum mechanics, it is just an ad hoc formalism that happen to work in microsystems. It may very well be possible that in the next decades there will be a theory that will solve the same problems that quantum mechanics does also solve and at the same time does not make Einstein uncomfortable about its foundations.
But it's about the quest that makes this journey fantastic, at times almost spiritual. At times one does not even know to ask the right questions, forget about answers.
Please be mindful. I am not talking about technology, that's a completely different subject. I am talking about basic science and mathematics.
Is there a conflict between spirituality and science? Not at all, at least the way I see it. I just hope I have not offended anybody with my very frank thoughts which are also quite personal.
Regards.
I could not spend much time in the forum during the last few days and weeks. I have seen a discussion brewing in this thread, but found myself incompetent and seriously out of time at the same time to contribute.
Let me start by saying that my knowledge is very limited in most things in life. I just happen to be a trained musician and a physicist. I have not taken up music as a profession, however, physics is my profession and my field of research is broadly quantum field theories (especially their nonperturbative properties). But physics or science is not really a profession, it cannot be, it's a way of life. Lately, a few posts have perturbed and hurt me which expresses childish views (of course in my very ignorant opinion) on science and also spirituality (I really do not understand the issue of religion very much).
What is the issue here? We have nature around us. We have not created the nature. So who created this universe? Believers would say it's God who created it. A non-believer would oppose it and say something in favor of science. I have never understood the relevance of any of this.
For me the notion of spirituality is a sense of upliftment from this material world we live in. When I sing or listen to music and I am fortunate enough to dig deep in that, there is only one feeling and that is bliss. It is as if one can go deep within oneself and at the same time forget about the self and material existences do not matter any more. Once one is in it, it is actually effortless, just a submission of the self into the music and the music takes you places with layered arrays of ecstasy.
Other people may find the same amount of bliss doing something else.
When one comes down to the real world after such deep involvement, one finds that the self is so little that it is almost inconsequential. The question springs to mind "who am I" in all this? BTW, for me this is a very personal feeling. I suppose when these notions and certain ways of life are preached and institutionalized, it perhaps falls in the territory of of religion. I have not understood religions very well, but I can understand what spirituality is.
But it does NOT answer the question: who created this universe and the nature around us. I think it is an irrelevant question.
Does science answer this question? Is it a relevant question in science? Let's examine.
In my mind, science does not need to be complete and it is not. If it were, it would have been possible for science to answer the above question. I do not think science will ever be able to answer the question who created the universe.
What is science then? What does it do? As far as I understand: it is a way of understanding the nature as it is given to us. For example, let us take a few diverse observations: 1) An apple just fell from the tree, 2) A pendulum displaced slightly from its equilibrium position undulates periodically, 3) planetary motions always follow a particular pre-determined path. All the above apparently unrelated observations are consequences of the Newton's law of gravitation. In this example, science can explain diverse phenomena with an unified notion. This is what I would call a scientific understanding. Is it complete? No way, because I can immediately ask why is the law of gravitation the way it is?
As I have said in the beginning, I have expertise in the area of quantum field theories (QFT). Now, quantum electrodynamics (QED) is an example of a QFT. It's the relativistic quantum theory of electrons and interactions among them by exchange of photons. But the basic premises of the theory is that one needs to put in a few inputs to the theory (like the charge and rest mass of the electron) and everything else is predicted. For example the magnetic moment of the electron has been calculated from this theory to a precision of ten places after the decimal or something like that and experimentally (of course had to be very very precise measurements) it has been found exactly equal to the theoretically calculated number and the experimentalist even won a Nobel prize recognition for it.
But again, can QED explain the charge and the mass of the electron? No. Is it incomplete? Yes. Is it worthless? No, because more than all its horrendously precise predictions about electrons and photons and their technologically successful applications (if any), for me, its is the thinking process, it is the right questions asked and then making a mathematical model of the part of nature in question that works within its region of validity, that is enjoyable.
It's a trial and error process. Many ideas are thrown in, and only a few or one works ultimately and science makes progress if one can call that a progress. Einstein's reluctance to accept quantum physics is one such dilemma that every scientist has to go through and actually goes through. If I happen to be an Einstein, it makes it in story books, for me and thousands of other scientists these dilemmas and many wrong moves are not known to more than a few in our community. And who am I to say Einstein's reluctance is completely unfounded or wrong? Because there exist a lot inconsistency and lack of understanding in the basic foundations of quantum mechanics, it is just an ad hoc formalism that happen to work in microsystems. It may very well be possible that in the next decades there will be a theory that will solve the same problems that quantum mechanics does also solve and at the same time does not make Einstein uncomfortable about its foundations.
But it's about the quest that makes this journey fantastic, at times almost spiritual. At times one does not even know to ask the right questions, forget about answers.
Please be mindful. I am not talking about technology, that's a completely different subject. I am talking about basic science and mathematics.
Is there a conflict between spirituality and science? Not at all, at least the way I see it. I just hope I have not offended anybody with my very frank thoughts which are also quite personal.
Regards.
marsilians
Well-Known Member
So your mother, or grandmother or a sister or a neighbour who happened to be a lady did not engage in any such conversation?
If not, I pity your existence and if yes, you need to open your mind a whole bit about this and break out of the shield of ignorance
square_wave
Well-Known Member
Are we saying that Darwin's theory of evolution has been indisputably proven in this book 'Greatest show on Earth'. My understanding is that this theory is still only a hypothesis. Nothing more. Scientifically speaking.
Square wave - I see I ought to have been clearer. I am not taking the side of the followers of 'intelligent creation' or the religious right wing in general. I am only pointing out to budding rationalists and science fanatics (for the advanced ones might find it difficult to change tack
The unsolved puzzles that we have lying before us are our present wonders. Literally. Lets muse over it. If there are various explanations given to those wonders, then so be it. Are the scientists morally in a position to sit on their high horse and trash everything that is being said? In my honest opinion, no. I guess the best thing then is to go in search of the solution, a rational explanation, if it exists.
And no, this still does not mean that I believe in every wild fantasy given as reason for all the wonders that still exist in the world. But I will not hide that many of the more fantastic explanations hold me in thrall. They rouse my curiosity. Maybe some day some scientist, who unlike me can actually make some intelligent use of his curiosity, will find out everything there is to be found out about some or all of these wonders.
Till then - lets not fight over 'who is superior', when both sides really dont have a real case. Hope this helps.
Totally in agreement with you here
If something is unknown, lets muse over it and appreciate the beauty and wonder of this universe
To make my point clear, I only have a problem when people try to retrofit theories (spiritual or scientific) to explain what is unknown at this point in time
the debate was getting a little heavy, and that post was meant to lighten.
but no, not my mother, not my grandmothers, not my sister (i have one), not any female co-worker - none of them have ever wanted to talk about such things.
well, i suppose one cannot always have what one wants, and thanks for sympathising.
Yes, i will be pro-active about this in future, and break free (if i can)
square_wave
Well-Known Member
Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers in Walnut finish at a Special Offer Price. BUY now before the price increase.
