Well, then, maybe this is my error and maybe it ain't, because I don't
think, by my definition, that science has any more of a culture than
color-vision does, or taste-buds. It is, again to me, an _unbiased_ way
of using one's observations. And I see 'bias' as 'culture.'
So, no, I do not want to be any part of, nor spend whatever time you
think would be necessary, to adopt a cultural bias against using my
observations. Culture to me is a color added (and not a value-added) to
the senses. Sometimes it is multivaried and quite attractive, and
utilizes complex forms, and I can call it art. But often it is pointless
and anti-observation, and you call it magic and expect me to swallow.
Nope.
Now, the 'scientific' establishment (whatever that is) can indeed be said
to have a culture. They have meetings, don't they? (And countless
biases.) If that is what you are talking about, you are right. If you
think that 'science' has meetings, I think you are wrong. I do not go to
them, and while I am not a scientist, I use science. I have tried your
magic, perhaps not to the degree you feel I should have, but why should I
stay by the side of the road and smoke the mushrooms, when there's a guy
on a bicycle around the corner?
If, and here's another sticky wicket, we are actually talking about Art
here, and we may be..., then I totally see your POV and indeed, agree
with it.
I don't know, time to move on?
*****************
Wade T. Smith
morbius@channel1.com | "There ain't nothin' you
wade_smith@harvard.edu | shouldn't do to a god."
morbius@cyberwarped.com |
******* http://www.channel1.com/users/morbius/ *******