Re: The Good ****p LOLLIPOP and Carl Sagan / Arthur Clarke / Brad Guth

Truth is observed in two ways.  One is the local truth
while the other  is the general greater universal truth.
The laws of physics as observed from earth may seem
to be what they are to earthlings based on how they function
in and on earth.  However in the greater universe these laws
may extend to work differently under different conditions that
are not known to us.  So the greater general truth is not known
to us and therefore whatever truth local scientist may determine
they should always accept the results as true to the extent of the
observation that could be expanded in future with more
intelligence knowledge and capabilities.

Epistemology is dependent upon the axioms of the system involved.
If the axioms of the system is not fully known then it is not possible
to determine most of the truths of the system.  Besides even if all the
axioms of a system is known there may exist certain truths of the
system that are epistemologically not provable to be true.  Kurt Godel
a mathematician proved that a system cannot prove all the truth]
about itself.  And the universe is also such a system.

Information about Kurt Godel : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel





"BradGuth" <bradguth@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1190644519.176636.85730@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ignoring the truth is fairly usenet common place, especially if such
> truth rocks your boat.  A swarm like insider mindset is also very
> usenet normal, because it's what makes you feel all warm and cozy, as
> well as being a team player or a happy camper.
>
> Observationology = Epistemology (moderated)
> http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?lnk=gschg
>
> Observationology is as old as raw intellegence.
>
> Observationology is as old as deductive reasoning.
>
> Observationology is as unaccepted as anything on Earth.
>
> Epistemology = Observationology, except if you're from Earth where
> either is of no value unless the mainstream status quo allows it via
> the bigotry of peers that have clear motives.
>
> Interpreting an image for the good or the bad of whatever's new or
> improved is not allowed in the eye of the beholder, especially when
> there's a given faith-based swarm like mindset that'll oppose whatever
> interpretation other than the mainstream status quo or as inert eye-
> candy, regardless of the consequences.
>
> Selective observationology is the modern science of hocus-pocus or
> illusionism that's applied differently to each situation, typically so
> that your mindset isn't bothered by the truth.  Phony arguments as
> based upon those nifty conditional laws of physics that apparently
> function not only different per terrestrial situation or application,
> but are never of what you think it is about whatever's off-world, or
> off-moon are common place.
>
> It seems Usenet along with most other internet forums are chuck full
> of such conditional laws of physics and/or the excluding of evidence
> on behalf of sup****ting their version of epistemology, that's as faith-
> based or cultism skewed in order to suit whatever's their one and only
> interpretation of everything, especially on behalf of anything that's
> worthy of boat rocking or god forbid revisionism.
>
> How much of epistemology is based upon lies or the exclusion of
> evidence?
>
> In other words, when is a lie not a lie simply because peers of
> epistemology say it's so?
> - Brad Guth -
>

> On Sep 23, 9:07 pm, "LKYs Mother" <LKYs_Mot...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
> > What most might consider to be useless data
> > might turn out to be useful to the brilliant minds.
> >
> > For example no one bothered about why apples
> > fall till Isaac Newton questioned the fall and discovered
> > and even measured gravity.
> >
> > So many might ignore my posts for they are the commoners
> > and therefore I expect no Isaac Newtons or Albert Einsteins
> > out of them.
>