Since the 6th of this month saw the anniversary of the use of the A-bomb on Hiroshima, and today is the anniversary of the use of the A-bomb on Nagasaki, and since, also, I have for some time intended to post here a much-needed critique of science, I have decided to declare this anti-science week. I intend, work and circumstances permitting, to post on my blog this week, a number of entries giving my reasons for why I think we must re-evaluate the authority that science has in the intellectual arena.
Let me start with a small explanation related to the events of early August, 1945.
The use of the A-bomb, was, I believe, a scientific experiment. On Sunday, the BBC screened a documentary on the events in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and one Dr Hida, who was near Hiroshima at the time, and treatd the casualties thereof, expressed just such an opinion. Japan was in a bad way at the time. No one had eaten white rice for months. The country could not hold out much longer. The militarists then in power in Japan, are, of course, not blameles. But they also provided America with a convenient excuse to do what they most wanted – to test the effects of the A-bomb on a densely populated city.
This is the very foundation of science – experiment. This kind of experiment is made possible because, according to science, all life is a purely chemical phenomenon. There is no soul. The experiment of Hiroshima, therefore, is essentially no different to mixing chemicals in a lab and seeing what happens. People are only objects to be used in the pursuit of knowledge and power. In science, morality has no foundation, and becomes untenable, since the foundation of morality must be the concept of the soul, which alone makes possible compassion.
On the abovementioned documentary, various people who took part in the mission to destroy Hiroshima were interviewed. None of them expressed any remorse. One went so far as to say that he had a job to do, that he did it well, and that he was happy with that. Just following orders, eh? Heard that before somewhere. It is science and its repressive rationalism that allows such a loss of compassion.
To quote William Burroughs, "No job too dirty for a fucking scientist."
The way that science neutralises compassion can also be seen on the Japanese side, in the events that took place at the secret research station, Unit 731. Here, many experiments, supposedly for the development of biological warfare techniques, were carried out upon thousands of POWs of all nationalities. When the Japanese surrendered, "[t]he US allowed these scientists to go unprosecuted in exchange for their experimentation data."
These events are chronicled in the film, Men Behind the Sun.
How do scientists get away with such exploitation? By convincing YOU that you have no soul. To quote Burroughs once more, "Convince them they've got no soul. It's more humane that way."
I mentioned the fact that I have been meaning to post a critique of science for some time. This began by chance when I posted a comment on someone's blog some time back. I post that comment in its entirety here:
Hello M,
I was going post a comment on what I believe without having any proof of its truth. Unfortunately, I've had very little time to go into such depth, and my eyes are still playing up a bit. But I will try and state it all simply. Most of the people who answered that Edge question are scientists. Science, in my view, is actually dangerous, because of its claims to objectivity. I'll try to break this down simply.
There's a quote at the beginning of a book by Burroughs from a character called Hassan I Sabbah (not sure if I've spelt that right). The quote runs: "Nothing is True. Everything is permitted." Burroughs explains the significance of this quote by saying that it is important not to beleve that anything can be true. What you have to do is take a look at who wants you to believe what, who is controlling the illusions that in turn control our lives, and then ask yourself what their motives are.
My impression is this, most scientists are the type of people who, at school, did not like subjects such as English literature and so on, because there was no 'right answer'. They did not understand how you could possibly grade something or know what to do in such circumstances. In the science subjects there were always right or wrong answers. It was easy for them to be right, and they liked being right. They liked the power this gave them, sensing in it a means of controlling life and their environment. What I'm saying here is, objectivity is a means to power in science. In other words, behind so-called objectivity is ambition.
In order to maintain the power that objectivity gives them, scientists need to see everything in terms of right or wrong, what can be proved or can't be. This means that they have to focus exclusively on the quantitive aspects of existence and ignore the qualitative. In fact, to ensure that their power really lasts, they have to convince the whole world that there is no qualitative aspect to existence. This is why scientists are adamant that there is no soul. When they talk about there being no room for any soul in the body, they reveal precisely how primitive their own thought processes are, as if they are expecting a sheeted figure to rise up vaporously when they cut open a cadaver. The quantitative aspect corresponds with the mass of the body. The qualitative aspect corresponds with the form. Mass and form. That's why scientists are so fond of looking through microscopes, and breaking things down – reductively – to their smallest particles. It's in order to ignore the form, the higher pattern. Science has a bottom up, rather than top down approach to analysing things. Define everything by its smallest particles. If we look, for instance, at a poem, we can see that the qualitative aspect is the mass of the ink on paper, and the neurons that it engages in the brain. The qualitative aspect is, first of all, the shape – where, precisely, can you get a hold of the shape? – and also the meaning. Let's start with a small one:
Old pond
A frog leaps
Sound of water
Where is the meaning of this poem? If you cut it into small pieces, would you find the meaning? The answer is no, of course. Yet to deny that there is a meaning, however valuable you think that meaning is, is to deny the obvious. But this denial of the obvious is precisely what science does. It is a pernicious way of thinking that erodes compassion and is resposible for our rape of the planet.
Objecitivy is now the new dogma. It is airtight – as long as you deny all things qualitative, where the soul resides – because it breaks everything down into what can be proved and what cannot, and this is precisely the realm where science has a monopoly. Ask youself this, Do we really want to live in a world where science's authority has become absolutely beyond challenge? Because that is the world we are heading for rapidly. We are almost there now. If I say that fundamentalists are dangerous, few people, except fundamentalists, would disagree. If I say that scientists are dangerous, suddenly I am a heretic and a crackpot – why? Because science has got so far with its hegemony of objectivity, which it guards jealously through being esoteric, so that no lay-person is qualified to tell a scientist what to do. But hear this – scientists are fundamentalists, too. They are fundamentalists of materialism.
It is good in some ways that so many of them are ready to confess to having beliefs that they cannot prove. But if you read what they say, most of them suggest that they will be able to prove them, and that they intend to.
Science has been useful to us, but I think that until it admits that it is self-limiting, and that, in essence, life is bigger than science, it has to be viewed as megolomaniac.
As I mentioned in a recent post, fellow blogger Lokutus Prime read this comment and assumed that I advocated the elimination of science. If you read the comment carefully, you will find that I do not actually advocate such a thing. However,since writing that comment, my views have hardened just a little. Dr Prime responded with entries of his own, in his characteristic verse, and now tells me he is preparing a defence of science. I am looking forward to it.
Great point about American fundamentalists, I’d not really thought of it quite so starkly.
Merton was a structuralist and functionalist, I believe, which is fairly far from mainstream sociology of science today. If you hunt around in Latour’s works – for instance, and only for instance – you’ll find empirical studies of laboratory life, that appear to show rampant subjectivity amongst scientists in explaining away failures and deciding on what to declare successes. My view is Latour goes too far toward social constructionism, but I say that without authority, so it must be faith speaking!
Here is a quote you may like, from one of the fathers of Sociology, Max Weber:
Who–aside from certain big children who are indeed found in the natural sciences–still believes that the findings of astronomy, biology, physics, or chemistry could teach us anything about the meaning of the world?
Weber also quotes Tolstoy as saying:
Science is meaningless because it gives no answer to our question, the only question important for us: “What shall we do and how shall we live?”
Well, the politicians regulate the scientists, and we participate in democracy, and so regulate the politicians… in theory at least.
You might like http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674013476/qid=1123670520/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/103-2641012-4159022?v=glance&s=books&n=507846">this</a> work. Latour is a big intellectual figure in the social sciences, esp in France.
To answer your questions briefly (work to do):
“What authority is that? What intellectual arena? When GM crops can be defeated by newspapers that lack a serious science correspondent, and a public devoid of facts?”
That is the popular arena, and I must say that I’m glad that the popular arena proved stronger in this case and did not allow itself to be blinded by science.
“How do you square this with Russell’s demarkation of philosophy from science and from religion (ie there are lots of questions science can’t answer, religion claims that it can, while philosophy analyzes them) OR Roger Penrose’s speculation that free will (akin-ish to soul) can be found in quantum phenomena?”
I don’t pretend to understand quantum physics. Some lay people leap on it as something that allows for the possibility of the soul, for a meeting of science and the spirit. My own readings on the subject seem to support this, but when scientists are questioned on the subject they seem to be adamant that quantum theory implies no such thing. If there are examples to the contrary I would like to hear them.
Of course, throughout history, starting with the likes, I believe, of Saint Thomas Aquinus (or was it Augustine?), people have tried to separate science and religion in order to safeguard the spiritual dimension of existence, but there are still certain currents within science that tend towards a domination of all areas of human thought and philosophy, for instance, in biology the tendency is towards eliminating anything not predictable by scientific laws.
” Do you know many scientists? What do you base your stereotype upon?”
I know enough, yes. I have scientists amongst my friends and acquaintances. I also read scientific literature. I based my ‘stereotypes’ therefore, upon multifarious experinces. I realise that this post is not very historically nuanced, but it’s also very short.
“This is not true. All science is technically provisional, and whilst falsificationism and paradigm shifts may not fully capture how science happens, their ethic is totally at odds with your statement. Many scientists will even discuss the outright vulnerability of their whole discipline to total change, and science often deals with uncertainty. For instance, no scientist would claim to be able to predict the weather.”
Yes, I have heard this before. It’s all just a workin hypothesis, etc. But science still has its articles of faith, such as the idea that the supernatural is absolutely antithetical to science.
“Reductionism is one view of causality in nature, but only one; it certainly doesn’t hold dominion of science given insights from dynamical systems, for example.”
In many ways, what I’m talking about is not emerging science, but the hard core of Newtonian values that are still very influential in science.
“How so, given that Creationism is taught in US school’s, where the President wishes to ban stem-cell cloning for religious reasons? The US having more power than anyone, I mean, too.”
I said “heading towards”. We have not arrived there quite yet. Besides which, fundamental Christianity and science are just two sides of the same coin, two twins that have grown up together.
It’s true, however, that I haven’t really addressed such fundamentalism as it is active in the US. To be honest, it seems unreal to me, and it does not form a large part of my experience. In my own life the struggle against the oppression of religion is practically over (I think); it is the struggle against rational chauvinism in which I feel myself caught up at the moment.
Hello Will.
Actually, at university I remember being accused of something very similar. I think the phrase ‘fence-sitter’ may have been used, or something very like it.
When people meet me in real life, I think that is how they tend to find me. But my blog tends to bring out some sort of alter ego.
I think, as a writer, I have to try and stand back and see the ‘bigger picture’ as much as possible. Obviously, that’s not what I’m doing in the above post.
The reasons for this are many. I do actually think science is dangerous. I do think its authority should be challenged. We shape reality more than we realise with our thoughts. I believe that, just as the part in Orwell’s 1984 try to eliminate thought crime by changing language itself, so science may be able to eliminate the soul by creating a world in which rational materialism is airtight. This will not be a reality that science has discovered, but one that it has created.
That is my sticking point. However you may wish to defend science, and even if it is ‘right’ (and I object to the very concept of being ‘right’), I cannot bring myself to champion something that seems hell-bent on destroying humanity’s soul.
Anyway, I will take a look at the link you posted. Thank you.
Why blame science for the evil that man has done? Science is in itself abstract and has no qualities that can be characterised as good or evil. It just exists. It would be like saying the Earth itself is evil because lots of bad things happen there. I think if anything we should stop putting the blame on other things and start accepting some responsibility.
Scientists are possibly evil people but certainly no more or no less than any other man or woman. Scientists may discount the existence of a soul (and this might be a gross generalisation) but maybe this is only to the extent that it represents something that is not measurable. If anything, I think a scientist must have a deep and fundamental admiration and wondering about our world and Universe – a consciousness which most of us can only aspire to have.
If you wish to truly reject science for a week then switch off your computer and your electricity, don’t take a bus or a train or a car anywhere. It’s not much fun, believe me.
JCL.
P.S. It is also the scientists who have put forward the theories and facts on Global Warming and are trying to ensure that industrial emmissions are kept to a minimum. There are a thousand issues like these which require our support, not our opposition.
I’m not quite so relaxed, I have to say! The main reason is the political one above; data about man’s effects upon the world because they are scientific, can be disregarded. It seems alien to me that such stuff is so massive in the States, but, apparently, it is. The secondary one is this tends to reify scientists as victims of evil – my colleague at work was a Jehovas Witness, her view was that things like Dinosaur bones were left by the Devil to fool people out of believing in God, because the universe is only a couple of thousand years old or some such.
I agree science doesn’t describe the world – I’m not really sure anything does or can do. Evil is a hatred of detail, and all that.
Why blame science?
To be honest, this entry is prompted in many ways by personal circumstances. I do feel personally oppressed by science – and in the name of science.
Yes, we need science to help us with the problem of global warming – a problem that science created in the first place.
Is science really abstract? Would it exist, as someone like Plato might have us believe, if there were no human beings to uphold the concept?
I am not blaming science for all the ills of mankind, anyway. I am simply seeking to challenge the authority that science has attained.
Oh yes – electricity and so on. I know about this, too. Yes, we live in a paradoxical world. I am by no means a saint, but to avoid science these days I think I would have to go to a desert island. I don’t actually like the fact that my environment has been determined to such an extent by people whom I have never met.
Anyway, your comments are not, of course, unreasonable. I’d probably make the same comments if I were mildly disposed in favour of science and came across a post such as the one above. Still, I have more to say – if time allows – before the week is through, that will hopefully give a more nuanced view of things.
The above post is not an ultimate truth, but I can tell you that it is the result of the law of the return of the repressed. If I did not feel in some way repressed by those who speak and act in the name of science, I would have no need for such terms of expression.
I’m afraid that further parts of my critique of science are also dealyed, due to pressures of work and that kind of nonsense. However, I do intend to continue with the theme when I have the time.
“Yes, we need science to help us with the problem of global warming – a problem that science created in the first place.” I’d say more that industrialisation, not science, caused global warming.
“Is science really abstract? Would it exist, as someone like Plato might have us believe, if there were no human beings to uphold the concept?” I’m not sure I quite get your question, but I think the point was that scientific knowledge is expressed abstractly: e equals mc squared had no man-made effects until some of the formula’s consequential insights were instrumentalized via technology, and human decisions, years later after its discovery.
“but to avoid science these days I think I would have to go to a desert island. I don’t actually like the fact that my environment has been determined to such an extent by people whom I have never met.” Desert island, not even there. Nowhere on earth is free of man-made consequences; even penguins huddled round their pole, for instance, have been found to have factory-emitted toxins dotted about their flesh. The globalsation of poison means mankind now acts as an elemental force everywhere upon the planet. Nothing will reverse this in our lifetime, probably within humanity’s entire species-time, we must instead find ways to be within such big facts. Philosophically I mean that the old opposition of nature:society no longer holds; nature is now permeated by society.
“I think we must re-evaluate the authority that science has in the intellectual arena.” What authority is that? What intellectual arena? When GM crops can be defeated by newspapers that lack a serious science correspondent, and a public devoid of facts?
“all life is a purely chemical phenomenon. There is no soul. ” How do you square this with Russell’s demarkation of philosophy from science and from religion (ie there are lots of questions science can’t answer, religion claims that it can, while philosophy analyzes them) OR Roger Penrose’s speculation that free will (akin-ish to soul) can be found in quantum phenomena? (Quantum phenomena being below the scale of chemistry, you’ll note.)
“In science, morality has no foundation, and becomes untenable, since the foundation of morality must be the concept of the soul, which alone makes possible compassion.” Most scientist do not want to be moral decision makers, they want to be technical experts and leave moral decision making to the social world, or similar. If the social world decides we need weapons and weapon testing, then the scientist humbly agrees, for instance – although in some cases they will protest, eg MIT in the 60s etc.
“My impression is this, most scientists are the type of people who, at school, did not like subjects such as English literature and so on, because there was no ‘right answer’. They did not understand how you could possibly grade something or know what to do in such circumstances. In the science subjects there were always right or wrong answers. It was easy for them to be right, and they liked being right. They liked the power this gave them, sensing in it a means of controlling life and their environment. What I’m saying here is, objectivity is a means to power in science. In other words, behind so-called objectivity is ambition.” Do you know many scientists? What do you base your stereotype upon? Power-knowledge is a Foucaultian concept, but even with that he was (1) very careful to distinguish between what he called true sciences and false sciences. An example of the latter being, for instance, Psychiatry, because it failed to understand its history, or rather deliberately ignored it. and (2) he saw power-knowledge as a phenomen pervading discourse in modernity, discontinuous with previous knowledge-types; should you not historicize science vis a vis modernity to include such connections?
” scientists need to see everything in terms of right or wrong, what can be proved or can’t be.” This is not true. All science is technically provisional, and whilst falsificationism and paradigm shifts may not fully capture how science happens, their ethic is totally at odds with your statement. Many scientists will even discuss the outright vulnerability of their whole discipline to total change, and science often deals with uncertainty. For instance, no scientist would claim to be able to predict the weather.
“- reductively -” Reductionism is one view of causality in nature, but only one; it certainly doesn’t hold dominion of science given insights from dynamical systems, for example.
“Do we really want to live in a world where science’s authority has become absolutely beyond challenge? Because that is the world we are heading for rapidly.” How so, given that Creationism is taught in US school’s, where the President wishes to ban stem-cell cloning for religious reasons? The US having more power than anyone, I mean, too.
I still don’t know what you mean by the intellectual arena dominated by science, there are it seems to me lots of intellectual areni (?) many of which aren’t dominated by science. Newspapers used to, perhaps sometimes are, and certainly ought to be, one such intellectual arena.
Roger Penrose holds the highest chair of Physics at Oxford, ie is Stephen Hawking’s equivalent. His views on quantum theory and its implications are controversial, however, it’s worth pointing out that also within the currents of such debates are the possibility that it is impossible for Physics to finish its quest for a Grand Theory of Everything – mostly for technical reasons! There is currently a huge gap between theoretical physics and physics, indicative that Ultimate Knowledge may well be never forthcoming from the universe.
I agree with you that biology has some harsh lessons for mankind, essentially knocking man from his throne at the centre of the universe in a way as equally dramatic as the Copernican revolution, but even more devastating: in one version of Darwinism, we are no more than statistical ciphers for genes, and in that way no different to an ant, or plant, for example. It leaves us with the question, how to rehumanize humans? But to me, free-will, meaning, (say) just so obviously exist, it is in fact within biology that the explanatory problem here is.
We obviously have different experiences of scientists, then!
“But science still has its articles of faith, such as the idea that the supernatural is absolutely antithetical to science” Within science there are some dissenting voices here, that say eg ESP lies logically outside of science due to some intrinsic property. If memory serves, Freeman Dyson – a Physics Professor of Physics in Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, as elite as it ever gets – is one such.
“It’s true, however, that I haven’t really addressed such fundamentalism as it is active in the US. To be honest, it seems unreal to me, and it does not form a large part of my experience.” Well, it’s important. For instance, some Christians explain current wars and species-extinction as a God-decided thing, the Prelude to His return upon the earth, when He will judge which humans are ready for heaven, which hell, etc, before He finally closes the universe down. It’s a set of beliefs (apparently) connected with the Left Behind books. I mean they really do see no reason to worry about the eradication of life upon earth – these are omens of their ascension, and the rest can go to hell – literally. On a more positive note, anti-science might help reverse the Europe to America brain drain in science, which would help us over here a great deal.
Yes, it looks interesting.
Unfortunately, I don’t have time to go over all the points you have raised right now.
I just thought I’d make a few remark on the one about creationism.
Someone tried to interest me in this whole conflict recently, telling me how some schools in America are insisting that when evolution is taught, the teachers say that “This is only a theory” and that they also teach ‘intelligent design’ as an alternative.
My basic response after a few moments thought was, “And?”
Evolution is only a theory.
What the scientists are objecting to is that intelligent design is being put forward as a scientific theory, whereas, in fact, it can, by definition, never be scientific, because it can never be disproved, and the scientific method rests upon disproving, or being theoretically able to disprove.
So, yes, those pushing intelligent design do seem to be devious in this sense, and if I had to back one side or the other, I would back those pushing evolution.
But really, ultimately, I just felt that this was someone else’s fight – not mine.
The discussion actually became quite interesting, because I just couldn’t muster much enthusiasm in my condemnation of the intelligent design lobby, and so I naturally began to question evolution.
I have a great respect for the person with whom I was discussing the subject, and we arrived at the mutual agreement that science, while it may be a useful tool, certainly does not ‘describe’ the world.
I’m afraid I’m a bit drunk, so this may not be very coherent.
Well, I suppose I should try and make my position a bit clearer, first of all.
I don’t want to usurp the authority of science by asserting my own authority. I basically tend to think of myself as ‘wrong’. I don’t know anythng. My objections to science are not to whether it is right or wrong so much as to the effects it has on our lives. These effects seem to be upholded by a system of authority that places a scientist abobve a mere lay-person like myself, giving him or her licence to do whatever the fuck she or he likes with the world that we all share.
This is basically what I object to.
But, because I don’t set myself up as an authority on anything – unlike some cunts – I am liable to change my mind at any point.
Sometimes, when I am in debate with someone claiming loyalty either to science or to rationalism generally, it seems to me that the debate is only over language. For that reason… fuck it, I should save this for when I’m sober.
Basically, reconciliation may be possible…
I think you’re right about fundamentalism. It is dangerous. I suppose I just don’t have much to say about it at this point in my life.
I’m aware of the Zionists, for instance, and realise that they are probably having a very negative effect on world politics.
You know, I do find it really weird, just how rabid some of these American fundamentalists are, and have been amazed to discover (relatively late on in my life) the extent to which a fairly primitive mode of religion is still prevalent in (apparently) the most modern and certainly the most powerful country in the world. It just goes to show how different our two cultures actually are, how we are two nations “divided by a common language”, and out of curiosity I want to spend some serious time in the States to see if I can really get what’s going on.
In my own life, as I have said, I don’t really feel myself immediately oppressed by religion, but do feel myself constantly oppressed by various forms of rationalism.
Oh yes, about the penguins. I knew about that, too. They are even included, briefly, in a story I wrote, which is http://www.ligotti.net/kb.php?mode=article&k=37&sid=9f0f52a1eedcd7d2c597f253529f8de4">available online.
By the way, in the ‘A Word a Day’ e-mail group, to which I subscribe, there was the following quote this morning:
“Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science
makes skepticism a virtue.” -Robert King Merton, sociologist (1910-2003)
Yes, I realise that’s the official line. I just don’t believe it’s so simple (or as noble as it sounds).
Well as usual I find I can empathise with all of the opinions expressed in the debate. I used to share a flat with a philosophy student who got tired of trying to argue with me and asked if I had a sore arse “from sitting on the fence so long”.
No doubt all of these fractured viewpoints have some kind of beautiful symmetry in eternity, on a mystical plane where all dualities are resolved in bliss. And I tell you what, there are even some scientists who have been there – check out the Archives of Scientists’ Transcendent Experiences
Hello Q, I am still ‘tardy’ in preparing a ‘defence’ but I have been involved in some problems/situations this last week, one of which is mundane (my car crash), the other rather more complex.
You mentioned that I had responded -your remarks “with entries of his own”, see ion of the ‘leading character’, and what would happen if his intention came to fruition -the ‘germ’ of my ‘inspiration’, writing an episodic fantasy in rhyming form, arose because of a ‘discussion’ between yourself and a dear mutual friend in a journal a while back) to an extent that will become apparent as the reader ‘traverses’ through the stanzas.
Scientific endeavour, study, investigation, is, or should be, the search for an answer, the search for a solution to a problem. A quest to find out “What?, Why?, Where?, How?, When? It starts with a thought. It continues with an examination, and the thought(s) eventually becomes a ‘thesis’. Every college student, every undergraduate will know that a thesis must stand up to the rigour of examination and must be ‘original’. It is not enough to assert “This, I believe”. One must lay out one’s reason(s) for such an assertion and have them ‘tested’ through evidence and rational argument, citing authorities in support, or, if it is a unique thesis (Darwin’s work comes to mind), lay out the ‘science’ involved, supply the evidence, submit it for appraisal, have it critically examined (by other scientists; Einsteins famous Theory of Relativity was examined, accepted and, to date stands as the bedrock for that specific field of science). I wrote about this, in rhyming form, in my journal “EINSTEIN & THE MASTER”
Hello Will.
I have just looked at the TASTE archive, and it is quite fasicnating. Unfortunately, it is also quite problematical.
The problem is, it appears to be compiled by one Charles E. Tart, a person who is very much a maverick in the scientific community. He eve has his http://skepdic.com/tart.html">own entry in the skeptic’s dictionary.
There are two basic ways of viewing the site.
1) It’s all a hoax set up by a known crackpot.
2) Charles E. Tart is a maverick, and is bashed unreservedly in the skeptic’s dictionary precisely for the reasons I have outlined in my post – that science pretends to objectivity, but has hidden agendas.
There may also be some middle ground here.
I note, anyway, that most of the people who have contributed to the archive are using pseudonyms, either, presumably, because of the ‘shame’ of being a scientist and yet having those nasty, unscientific spiritual experiences, or because they are a figment of Mr Tart’s imagination.
I do not know which.
people kill people writes:the fact is that no matter how were here we are distroying everything all life and we are disroying ourselfs we have left no room for salvation there is no hope we are a lost couse. nothing to do but but await our deaths and hope we dont stay alive to see 2012
Анонімний writes:Specialists claim that home loans help people to live their own way, because they are able to feel free to buy necessary goods. Moreover, banks give small business loan for all people.