Re: [escepticos] Fin del Diccionario Esc?ptico

[LAGAMEZ <LAGAMEZ@...>]

Qué estragos hace entre los escépticos el 1 de abril, día 
anglosajón de los inocentes. Señores, que hay que fijarse un 
poco más :-)))). Parecen  periodistas.

Saludetes,

Luis alfonso Gámez

----- Mensaje Original -----
De: Maria Coria <maria_clara_coria24 en yahoo.com.ar>
Fecha: Viernes, Abril 2, 2004 6:23 am
Asunto: [escepticos] Fin del Diccionario Esc?ptico 

> 
> R.T Carroll (http://skepdic.com/) dio por concluido el Diccionario 
> Escéptico y posteó un mensaje sorprendente. ¡¡¡Sería 
interesante 
> que alguien lo tradujera al español!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Today I announce the end of The Skeptic's Dictionary.
> 
> I did not think I could ever give up my skepticism but I have 
> recently 
> had an experience that has changed my mind about everything I 
have 
> come 
> to disbelieve.
> 
> My transformation started out innocently enough. I was reading 
an 
> interview with William Dembski in Christianity Today. Yes, I have 
> been a 
> covert reader for some time now. Anyway, something Dembski 
said 
> resonated with me like nothing has resonated with me for a long 
> time. He 
> said "We don't know what randomness is, or the way we get at 
> randomness 
> is by knowing what randomness is not. What would happen 
repeatedly 
> was 
> you'd find something with a pure random but then you'd find the 
> pattern 
> in it. Randomness was always a provisional designation until 
we 
> found 
> the pattern or design in it. " Eureka!
> 
> That was the beginning. The kicker was when I was doing some 
yard 
> work. 
> I came in afterward and noticed th at there were several weeds 
> stuck to 
> my socks and shoes. It was like a hammer to the head. I started 
to 
> see 
> the patterns. There was clearly a design here. The weeds 
excreted a 
> sticky substance that allowed them to cling to my clothes. When I 
> moved 
> around I carried their seeds with me and had unwittingly 
deposited 
> them 
> throughout my yard. Soon, my yard would be crawling with 
weeds and 
> I 
> would have been partially to blame. But I wasn't concerned about 
> the 
> yard. I had a bigger problem. I had seen that randomness could 
not 
> account for the weeds' behavior. Yes, behavior. What else could 
it 
> be? 
> The weeds clearly know what they are doing. They didn't just 
> accidentally cling to me. There is no way this was just matter 
> randomly 
> and meaninglessly behaving in a way that looked like design. 
This 
> was 
> truly design at work.
> 
> I was forced to rethink everything I disbelieve in. If weeds can 
> act 
> with intentions, then how could I deny that the fluctuations in 
> random 
> event generators (REGs) could be random? I couldn't. I had to 
admit 
> that 
> perhaps there is something to those experiments that show that  
> REGs 
> went orderly during Princess Diana's funeral but not during 
Mother 
> Teresa's. The temporary lack of randomness might well indicate 
a 
> global 
> consciousness and a preference for certain kinds of women.
> 
> Other patterns started to emerge from the randomness. 
Wherever 
> there is 
> order there is design. Dembski is right. I don't know why he took 
> so 
> many books and pages to say such a simple truth. But I am glad 
he did.
> 
> Farewell skeptics. I'll see you in Hell.
> 
> R. T. Carroll
> April 1, 2004
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> ¿Buscás un auto?
> Encontralo en Yahoo! Autos
> ¡Más de 4000 clasificados todos los días!
> Usados - 0 km - Vendé el tuyo