RE: psychoceramics: Re: psychoceramics-d

["Wright, Bruce" <32000BKT @ macnet.cpa.state.tx.us>]

>> Well, it's not necessarily science as practiced in academia, but I doubt
>>that it's "faith" either. There are other possibilities beyond this rather
>>self-satisfied little sci.skeptic-style dichotomy. 

>I'd be interested to know what you mean by this: can you explain?

Oh, simply that there may be knowledge that is interesting and valid without 
being "replicable under laboratory conditions" or otherwise dovetailable into
existing information systems.  As the Fortean Times puts it: "It may be a
matter of evidence, but the nature of evidence is itself a matter of
opinion."  I regret the aggressive tone that crept into my post.  If I wanted
to start pointless arguments I could always hang around usenet.  ;-)

Bruce W.
Writer, ne'er-do-well, associate editor of Strange magazine, last time I
checked Icons clasted: apply here