Re: A more concise and quantifiable definition of Friendliness?

From: Jeff Bone (
Date: Sat Dec 08 2001 - 21:04:43 MST

Gordon Worley wrote:

> > Yawn. That's a very anti-scientific argument, Eli --- indeed one I
> > often hear
> > religious folks (like the Creationist crowd) use to undermine the
> > credibility of
> > arguments from a scientific bias. Let's keep in mind that the model
> > that we have now
> > --- while *certain* to change and improve --- is now yielding very
> > fine-grained
> > predictions with accuracy improving at a rate that outstrips our
> > ability to verify
> I agree with Eliezer on this one. The Fundies are interested in seeing
> physics work in a totally different way than it does, because their
> arguments don't work unless things change at a very basic level. The
> the point here is that physics changes, but it doesn't really. Our
> models change and the laws of physics *may* change with time, but all in
> all every day physics is still the same, just we don't know about it.
> There's nothing wrong with that; just the way it is.

I think you're confused about who you're agreeing with, Gordon. There's no
inconsistency there with what I stated. That is, the issue is either
nonexclusive, or you're actually disagreeing with Eli. I leave you to decide
which of those is true. :-)


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT