4 ms·

When I was taxi driving, I found it useful to believe that I had an itinerary, and that my job was to be in the right place at the right time to meet the people

When I was taxi driving, I found it useful to believe that I had an itinerary, and that my job was to be in the right place at the right time to meet the people who I was supposed to meet that day. Mr. "Who are your lifelines" [0] was a case in point. I was parked at a Quik Trip gas station, he asked if I was available, I took him somewhere, he saved my number. I later bailed him out of jail, and am going to be using his story to push for change in our criminal justice system. [0] http://www.taxiwars.org/who-are-your-lifelines/ http://www.taxiwars.org/who-are-your-lifelines/ > There is no evidence that any of the experiences people have that can't be explained are a result of supernatural causes. This is slander for phenomenon which are not very well understood by the present state of knowledge. Radon/radiation poisoning would have been classified as "supernatural" by pre-1896 scientists ("science advances one funeral at a time"; I don't know how long it took for the possibility of 'radiation' to permeate the scientific culture).

mgamache 8y ago
> Radon/radiation poisoning would have been classified as "supernatural" by pre-1896 scientists That is exactly my point. A lot of phenomena that were once the purview of religion are now explained by science. The reverse is never true (nothing explained by science has subsequently found a better explanation in religion)
- taxicabjesus 8y ago
  > The reverse is never true (nothing explained by science has subsequently found a better explanation in religion) 1. Scientific explanations are often found to be incorrect. 2. Scientific explanations are often found to be incomplete. 3. Scientific explanations are often found to build on assumptions. My posts in this thread are not so much about Religion, but about what do you believe. Everyone believes something. Why do you believe what you do?
  - mgamache 8y ago
    Scientific explanations are always incomplete and approximations of an objective reality. Yes all Science has to make fundamental assumptions to function, we all have to make assumptions to function in the real world. There are fewer fundamental assumptions with Science then with religion. I am fallible, but I try believe in things based on evidence.
    - taxicabjesus 8y ago
      > Scientific explanations are [...] approximations of an objective reality. There's one of your beliefs: that there is an "objective reality". I believe in a shared reality, and that each individual has their own subjective reality too. Everyone has their own experience of an event, and their own inner world (dreams, imagined experiences, etc). I would also posit that there is no one "Science". Science is a process. Every individual who investigates the world forms their own conception of what has already been discovered, and what is worth investigating. 'Scientific Consensus' is an agreement about what good scientists are to believe. Simple matters are easy to form a consensus about; complex matters are still under discussion.

mgamache 8y ago

> Radon/radiation poisoning would have been classified as "supernatural" by pre-1896 scientists That is exactly my point. A lot of phenomena that were once the purview of religion are now explained by science. The reverse is never true (nothing explained by science has subsequently found a better explanation in religion)

taxicabjesus 8y ago
> The reverse is never true (nothing explained by science has subsequently found a better explanation in religion) 1. Scientific explanations are often found to be incorrect. 2. Scientific explanations are often found to be incomplete. 3. Scientific explanations are often found to build on assumptions. My posts in this thread are not so much about Religion, but about what do you believe. Everyone believes something. Why do you believe what you do?
- mgamache 8y ago
  Scientific explanations are always incomplete and approximations of an objective reality. Yes all Science has to make fundamental assumptions to function, we all have to make assumptions to function in the real world. There are fewer fundamental assumptions with Science then with religion. I am fallible, but I try believe in things based on evidence.
  - taxicabjesus 8y ago
    > Scientific explanations are [...] approximations of an objective reality. There's one of your beliefs: that there is an "objective reality". I believe in a shared reality, and that each individual has their own subjective reality too. Everyone has their own experience of an event, and their own inner world (dreams, imagined experiences, etc). I would also posit that there is no one "Science". Science is a process. Every individual who investigates the world forms their own conception of what has already been discovered, and what is worth investigating. 'Scientific Consensus' is an agreement about what good scientists are to believe. Simple matters are easy to form a consensus about; complex matters are still under discussion.