Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.

NavList:

A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Message:αβγ
Message:abc
Add Images & Files
    or...
       
    Reply
    Re: Oblique Ascension.
    From: Peter Fogg
    Date: 2005 Aug 29, 03:21 +1000

     

     

      Frank, you wrote:

     

    But this brings us to  an interesting conundrum... How do you know that any "mainstream" topic in  science is not "nonsense"? Let's take, as a random example, fluid dynamics. It's  mostly classical physics in the extreme, and I can't think of any reason to be  skeptical of its basic conclusions --it's about as mainstrem as you can get. But  why do you believe in it as a science and not, to pick another random example,  homeopathic medicine?? Have you studied it yourself (and if you have, pick  another comparable example)? Although rational thought and personal  experimentation are a big part of science, in the end, you and I cannot  personally test each and every theory. So do we adopt an absurd agnosticism in  which subjects outside our personal experience are unknown to us? Or can we  accept that there is a certain division of labor in science, and if I find  something nonsensical, you also have a basis for finding it nonsensical? I  believe that this is actually what people do in the real world of science, but  it's a bit removed from the utopian vision of scientific proof. As I say, it's a conundrum. 

     

    Both fluid dynamics and (to a lesser extent) homeopathic medicine lend themselves to rational explanation. I accept as prima facie evidence the work others have put into understanding them. Other topics seem beyond science. To dismiss them as nonsense without evidence seems a travesty of rationality. I am intrigued by those who profess to be rational yet proudly claim to be atheist. How do they know? I always wonder. Isn’t their lack of faith as equally blind as that of those who profess it? It seems to me that agnosticism, far from being absurd, is the only rational response to the unknowable. I agree its a conundrum.

     

    Navigation owes a lot to astrology, as many early astronomers were inspired by astrological motives. Even now, it seems, astrology continues to shine a light for us, to wit the current topic.

     

       
    Reply
    Browse Files

    Drop Files

    NavList

    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    Name:
    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Email:
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.
    Email:

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Subject:
    Author:
    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site