From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Off topic: Crocodiles
Date: 1997/06/11
Message-ID: <dewar.866051313@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 247706054
References: <19970609.5A1DA0.14F78@an194.du.pipex.com>
 <199706111259.OAA29188@basement.replay.com> <339EA557.4D49@polaroid.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Mukesh said

<<Actually, there is no reason for it to be particularly
"dismissed", it simply is not useful.  It may or
not represent some kind of reality, but is not
concerned with measurable and observable reality.>>

The notion of unobservable reality is not only irrlevant to science, but
often actively harmful. Scientists do better not to start believing in
any "reality" at all, but rather to concentrate on what is observable and
what is not. Once scientists start "believing" anything, they are prone
to unscientific inflexibility :-) As I mentioned before Al Matson, the
physicist from UT, has explored this issue very effectively.