On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 14:09:31 -0800, Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >You can challenge Hawking about black holes or Dawkins about evolution and get >an argument. You can't challenge the Pope about some fact about Mary; he'll >just say it's a revealed truth. But there aren't all that many people who can follow the argument, particularly Hawking's :<). That doesn't mean the difference in the two types of responses doesn't exist - it does mean that those who can follow the argument, or can follow it well enough and have enough other experience to trust those who can follow it have to realize that obtaining knowledge can be quite different for other people. And that is not due to some sort of mental disorder, and not necessarily due to mental laziness (I admit it is in a distressing number of cases). It does mean you can't put forth an argument and expect its obvious inner beauty to automatically win the day - even in this august company. As someone has pointed out, a correct scientific statement should be capable of being proven wrong. The way we make progress is proving stuff wrong and seeing what survives. The trouble is, that too many of them *have* been proven wrong when they were advanced with insufficient backing to begin with. That is of course the fault of people - but whose fault it is is immaterial. The result is that to the lay person it is harder to tell which is which. Whenever something controversial arises - e.g. global warming, smoking, asbestos - it is usually possible to generate scientific reports and studies that at least call expensive solutions into question. None of this helps public confidence. Of course their cars run pretty well - so do their refrigerators and TVs - but as is being mentioned in another branch there can be a lot of uncertainty about what *health* means, particularly mental health. Nonetheless, I don't think we want to shut down our hospitals and clinics until we are absolutely sure. Particularly since I personally believe that part of the definition for a long time to come will include what I mean by religion - something for which there is no scientific basis, but for which we have to choose to proceed with life. Many who participate in this choice will do so on the basis of religious principles, religious in the more normal use of the word. Richard