RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Nieft / Secola <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 7 Mar 1998 08:09:41 -1000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (43 lines)
JL:
>I agree that scientists make mistakes and that science has found only a
>part of the truth,

Perhaps some people prefer to ignore science (yes, usually only when it
contradicts their ideology) because science is based on doubt. Science
doubts all knowledge and has supported of unsupported theories which
explain measured "facts". A "supported theory" is a far cry from the surity
which idealism delivers...

IMO, that's why science has been so successful in expanding human
knowledge. We are a species with the capacity to believe on _faith_ and
usually do so when the belief is attractive to us (ideology). Science
doubts all belief, all explanations, and demands logic and rigor in any
support. Ideology has faith, even in the absence of "support" (even in the
presence of contradictory evidence). So we can believe things that are not
good or useful approximations of reality, and usually do so. Science
becomes a crap-detector for belief, and as a way of approximating reality
it is extremely useful IMO.

The trouble comes when science becomes a belief system in and of itself
which is based on faith instead of doubt. That is, the idea that nothing is
true if science hasn't proven it.

Somebody had a good line a while back (was it PE?) about science being the
accumulation of anecdotal evidence. I would add that most knowledge is
negation. The human diet is NOT this, it is NOT that. Which is an entirely
different process than we see in an idealistic diet where we are assured
that the optimal human diet IS this, IS that. The trouble, for me, has been
accepting that there are no absolutes, that there are Perfect things
(except for maybe a few Robert Francis poems ;)), that nature (and
especially human nature) is not Perfect but instead an interwoven
complexity of double-edged swords and trade-offs--some combinations which
may work better in some circumstances, but no holy grail in sight without
rose-colored sunglasses...:/ ;)

Nature isn't perfect, it is whatever works. Human nature isn't perfect, and
it includes a bunch of stuff that doesn't much work ;)

Cheers,
Kirt


ATOM RSS1 RSS2