Who is Ken Collins?

PF fell_spamtrap_in at ozemail.com.au
Mon Aug 5 03:10:33 EST 2002


"mat" <mats_trash at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43525ce3.0208040745.18f3c7a5 at posting.google.com...
> you don't get it do you?  the way in which you have approached this
> theory of yours is as to make it tautological and thus unfalsifiable.
> whatever experimental result someone presents you with you'll just
> claim in some affected paragraph of romantic whimsy that your ideas
> encompass it.  you've already decided its the truth so therefore
> everything must be explained by it.  you may as well ask me to provide
> evidence for the non-existence of god.  In the same way, whatever
> 'evidence' I show you (wars, famine) you'll just claim it as part of
> god's plan. In short, you have decided a priori that any evidence is
> due to god - you are not open to disproof. This is why theories such
> as yours are metaphysical and not science.

Ken has authored a general formula for interpreting brain-science and
behaviour. Not a theory in the sense you, Mat, mean it.

Both fortunately and unfortunatly for Ken, his formula does not force him
(nor anyone else, for that matter) to clearly recognize and focus attention
on the from scientific and academic anthropobiological analyses 'MOST
MISSING' factorial/explanatory facets/aspects of our evolution,
psychophysiology, and behavior.

His religiousness and retoric compensates for that very (by me here only
insinuated) fact; and it does so in a way (one that I have termed, and most
generally understand, to be "AEVASIVE") that we 'ought' not to get upset
about; especially considering that Ken is (or at least so strongly seem to
be) a very good-hearted person.

This in contrast to me, who with mean glee usually preaches the virtues of
'SEPTIC think-tanking' and a fearfully sober sociopolitical endevour to
maximize world-wide "ALQHolism". %-|

Peter


--
This post of mine was, as my posts almost always are, stingily sponsored by
EAIMC Internetional Ptd. Lty., and *not just* jotted in justifiable though
author-image jeopardizing jester, but - by jove! - also with some equally
well warranted serious intent.





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list