Thursday, September 8, 2005

Comments Vault

4

Britney Spears goes bald

3

this is a really nasty bite

2

I understand some criticism may be offered by science - mainly empirical - in the exact physical sciences. But such diatribes offer a sad glimpse into the critics' own ignorance. You have little idea on what makes theories scientific - you confuse correlation with causation, materialism with reductionism/instrumentalism, and scam with philosophical debate... Few neurobiologists and mathematicians seem to have plowed through the rich literature on the psychoproblem. As a result of this amnesia, you tend to proffer archaic arguments long rendered trivial by centuries of history. Just consider for a moment that Science likes to deal with theoretical entities and concepts ¡V graviton black holes cordes - that have never been seen, measured, quantified... These should not be mismatched with tangible entities. They have their own roles in the conjecture. Yet, when you tease the psycho trinity, Reich, Freud and Jung, id, ego, and the superego, your critics do just that - you relate to the theoretical constructs as though they were real, computable, "things". Don't be such a pink and for Bob's sake, Slack Off!

1

That's true... makind tends to forget that : the internet is for porn, the internet is for porn, the internet is for porn, porn porn porn...



0

arretes tout Gilem, g trouve un blog bien plus interessant auquel je suis sur tu as maintes fois participe ... de pres ou de loin d'ailleurs ... http://wanchaichronicles.blogspot.com/

comments closed