Thanks nasch. I actually had to go back and re-read what I said to see if I might have implied that.
I do find it interesting that Morgenstern presents an argument that could have come directly from the friend I was speaking of. I don't think I would want to drink beer with both of them at the same time.
And he is correct about one thing about me. I really don't understand how change is a problem. You can point out specific instances or examples of change that suck to you, to be sure, and I might agree on some of them. But in general, change is what makes the world so fascinating as far as I'm concerned.
I have a friend who truly believes that the rapid advancement of technology is destroying society. And the reason he believes that is because he can't keep up with it. Because he can't keep up, it must be bad. What folks like this never seem to understand or accept is that the world of the past they're comfortable is the result of things changing.
The changing world is not the problem. Your inability to adapt to it is.
A friend of mine, who has a degree in philosophy, usually has a fit when I'm foolish enough to use the word "truth" when discussing topics in science. I think a comment I read on Slashdot nailed it - science is about facts, truth is in the realm of philosophy.
What I can never get him to accept is that science is a process. What is thought to be known currently is always subject to revision. Scientists are continually trying to be less ignorant.
And I don't believe it is arrogant to make statements claiming this is how this thing works. That's just the process. A claim is made and others test it's validity.
No one can say for a fact whether or not we can ever figure out how the universe works. Maybe we can. And I don't consider that thought to be arrogant (although it is most definitely ignorant). I'm just trying to limit my assumptions.
Re: Re: Sure to be popular with 14-year old girls.
I like that. I've got a friend who I sometimes think of as a loud mouthed asshole who just want to argue no matter how ridiculous the argument. Now I can think of him as a repetitive contrarian. Cool! Thanks!