Home > Philosophy, Religion, Science > The Truth About The Truth

The Truth About The Truth


When people go in search of the truth, they tend to find whatever it is they’re looking for, whether it is the truth or not.”

Xenocrates

Remember when Pluto was a planet? Now it isn’t. Remember when removing tonsils cured tonsillitis? Now we know better. Or what about when the moon was completely devoid of water? Recent discoveries show otherwise. All of these things were true once. So I’ve got to ask a really tough question of you:

What is truth?

Is truth whatever we can verify? If so, how do we verify it? If it is by checking the facts, then that means that truth is contingent on fact. However facts are relative to our perception, since as we’ve shown, what is fact today, may not be a fact tomorrow. By proxy, this means that truth is relative to perception.

If truth is relative to perception, then truth has no absolute value. But if the truth is not absolute, then whence do we call it truth? If there is a sliding scale upon which we measure the truth, then the truth about the truth is that there’s no such thing as truth – only the relative perceptions of cognition.

This means that the truth is ultimately unverifiable. The truth is thus highly contingent on faith. Something can only remain true so long as we believe it is. Therefore, much of what we’ve developed in the name of civilization is based on the premise of faith. Even the scientific principles that we’ve come to know and love are only true in this universe – so far as we can tell anyway.

Every once in a while, we’ll hear about some other scientific principle that we have to “forget all we know about“, as some new discovery touts itself as being “the true nature” of this or that. Textbooks are rewritten all the time to reflect this shift in cognitive perception. It’s an all too familiar reality we’re faced with.

Since then, I’ve come to learn several things about the truth:

1. Popularity doesn’t validate truth

pope-rome-basilica

Catholicism is the most popular and least scripturally accurate form of Christianity

When I first set out to validate my faith, I came across so many different versions of the truth that I was ultimately disappointed with what I found. Ever since I discovered how people misinterpret ubiquity as validation of truth, Religion no longer held the same appeal for me. I became inherently skeptical.

I discovered that people were just literally making it up as they went along. People borrowed bits and pieces of other culture’s practices, mythologies and arcane rituals and created an astro-heliological hybrid that was used as a political smelting pot to forge the reins of control it enjoys today.

If Christianity is a hoax of biblical proportions (literally) then because of its ubiquity, people assume that it is the truth. Fundamentally speaking, there are useful lessons to be derived from Christianity. In fact, I will even go as far as to say that religion is usually fun until people start to take it seriously.

However, when a fornicating Christian presumes to judge me for the blasphemy of daring to question the validity of their faith, I usually take the time to remind them that their charade is no more relevant than that of the ancient Egyptians 5,500 years ago, when Horus was the original Sun of God.

If ubiquity were to become any validation of the truth, then in a few hundred years, if the Atheists don’t have their way, then Islam will become the truth and Christianity will have fully fallen away into a long line of mythological fads that encompassed our epistemology for a time. Truth is anything but popular.

This fallacy also extends into science. Many scientists have tried to pass on ideas which have become a part of urban legend. When they aren’t busy declaring that microwaves are deadly (not quite), that teflon causes cancer (not true), that fat is the one thing to look out for in food (then it was cholesterol, then it was carbs – and the list goes on), then they are recanting.

Now there is a process of peer review to achieve some level of objectivity. We may be satisfied with this process to some extent, but we must also remember that peer review does not make a scientific claim any more valid than two billion people who believe in a hybrid religion rooted in ancient Egypt.

Scientists can verify each other’s claims all they want. However, sooner or later, some new discovery will ultimately render all that peer review moot. For example, the ubiquity of the acceptance of evolutionary theory means very little on the large scale as scientists are finding holes in it every single day.

The ubiquity of an idea does not validate it as truth. Popularity and truth are mutually exclusive. Viral communication techniques have proven that it is exceptionally easy to propagate a lie through most of the populous several times over before the truth has a chance to launch out of the stables. In fact, lies and ubiquity are more inextricably linked than the truth ever was.

I could go a step further and say that the believability of an idea is directly proportional to its sensationalism. Maybe that’s why there are people out there who still try to avoid standing in front of a microwave oven when it’s running or why only a celebrities’ dirty laundry consistently makes the tabloids.

New Rule:

If everybody believes it, it’s probably not true. Ergo, if everyone’s doing it, it’s probably a bad idea. Contrary to popular belief, the wisdom of crowds has proven to be strangely misleading. Herd Logic is as tremendously empowering as it is frighteningly misguided. Beware the flawed wisdom of ubiquity.

2. Personal revelation isn’t truth

Religious Epiphany in Prison
Prison seems to be a favourite place for having epiphanies

There have been countless numbers of people who while going through a rough patch in their lives had an epiphany of life changing proportions that changed their life outlook forever. A number of them have gotten rich by writing about their experiences. Others have started self help groups.

Between those who have gotten speaking engagements (not because of what they had to say as much as how much people love to hear them say it) and those who’ve gotten book deals, millions of dollars have been thrown at them. To say that some of them are con artists is a gross understatement.

The bottom line is that much of what they had to say was only useful to them. Many of the people who’ve subscribed to their work never had to have those kinds of terrible life experiences to know some of these things. These people thrive on selling drama – not wisdom. No wonder so much of it is garbage.

If I had a dollar for every jail bird who converted to Islam/christianity/[insert your favourite religion here], I would buy me a television station dedicated to exposing these merchants of gullibility for what they really are.

Between the people who’re telling you how to “double your dating” by being a jerk to those who’re telling you that “being positive always equals opportunity”, you will find several million ways how their doctrine is flawed. Then there are those annoying folks and their near death experiences.

I remember sharing a conversation with a Christian colleague who was relating to me the life after death experience of a guy who claims to be a Christian. He was so compelled that this guy’s experience was the real deal, that it took a good hour to explain to him why people have these experiences.

Life after death experiences are a result of electricity seeping out of the brain of someone who is near death. People who experience severe sleep paralysis also have a very similar experience. I don’t mean to sound insensitive, but this guy just never got a chance to kick the bucket properly. It’s that simple.

There are hundreds of other examples of people like that dude who have had such an emotional upheaval in their lives, that they feel compelled to share it with everyone. What they fail to understand is that their experience is only relevant to them. What everyone else fails to understand is that the person sharing the experience is only trying to make a quick buck off their ignorance.

…or trying to validate some right wing agenda.

If a Muslim had a near death experience, they would see Allah and Muhammed and 72 virgins. If a Mormon had a near death experience, they’d see Joseph Smith, Jesus and Jehovah. If a Catholic had a near death experience, they’d see Jesus, Mary, and perhaps their patron saint and some family members.

You see where I’m going with this, right?

Have you ever heard of a Muslim having a near death experience and seeing Jesus? What about a Jehovah’s Witness having a near death experience and seeing Joseph Smith? Or a Buddhist seeing Mary and a Patron saint when they are in their last throes of death? Why have I never heard of such things?

For a very simple reason: Because it’s all make belief.

A Near Death Experience doesn’t validate your faith. It’s nothing more than a reflection of your own life experiences and social engineering. In fact, scientists have found that the content of Near Death Experiences differ between cultures. Concordantly, they’ve also found that children who’ve had near death experiences don’t experience any religious content of any sort. That says a lot.

Whatever feels like the truth for someone, becomes the truth for that person. However, the validity of that truth looses its effectiveness outside of the domain of people who also accept that relativity. This is why when people join self help groups, they find that so much of the material is useless to them.

This is the same reason why people can defect from one religion to another. It’s not because the religion to which they defected (or converted) is any more true for them than the one they chose to abandon. It’s just that in terms of that person’s personality, the chosen faith just fits better. It’s just that simple.

There are Christian colleagues of mine who’ve converted to being Seventh Day Adventists, not because they believe in the Sabbath law, but simply because they prefer to have rest day before going back to work. They will then use all the Sabbath teachings (however irrelevant) to validate their choice.

It doesn’t matter that the Sabbath law is a cultural approximation that has no validity outside of the Jewish culture. It doesn’t matter that Christ himself demonstrated that the Pharisees completely misinterpreted the law. It doesn’t matter that Bible itself guards against Sabbath day misappropriation.

Once they’ve chosen to believe it, it becomes true.

New Rule:

Truth is relative to the individual. When people go in search of the truth, they tend to find whatever it is they’re looking for, whether it is the truth or not. There’s no such thing as ‘salvation‘ or ‘nirvana‘ or ‘enlightenment‘. These are all states of the mind. Our minds make it real and there is nothing more to it.

3. The truth is always incomplete

Re-evaluating the Truth

No matter what we already know, there’s always more to learn.

Can you show me a triangle without drawing one, or finding an image of one, or pointing to a conceptual abstraction in architecture or a cardboard cut out? The idea of a triangle is man made. It doesn’t exist in and of itself. If mankind should cease to exist tomorrow morning, then so would the hapless triangle.

In fact, much of human epistemology is highly contingent on our continued existence. There could be a race of super humans who while vulnerable to kryptonite, acquire god like abilities when exposed to a yellow Sun. However, they were wiped out by a cataclysmic seismic core failure in their planet.

Providing that none of them were smart enough to send a rocket ship to the Earth with the last son of their doomed civilization, all of their knowledge, technology, culture, science, literature, philosophy – would be gone.

Did they exist? As far as we’re concerned, only in comic books. But is it true that they existed? Nope. Not as far as we can tell anyway. Or maybe they do exist, but unfortunately, space is so vast, that it is invariably impossible to tell with our limited technology. We’d be floundering in the dark for centuries.

Every time we set out to prove something, we need to validate it with something else that we assume to be true in all cases – until we come across an exception. That’s when the text books have to be reprinted and all the people who championed one theory over another swallow their arrogance.

This is why it amuses me when one troupe of scientists are embattled by another on a popular debate. You must’ve heard of some of these by now: Nature vs. Nurture; Evolution vs. Intelligent Design; Infinite vs Finite Universe; String Theory vs. Quantum Loop Gravity – the list goes on and on:

But what if our civilization were wiped out tomorrow morning? None of these things would matter. All of these things are human inventions. They are human representations of the natural world. These representations have no value outside of the human race, and may even be no more than half true.

Even mathematics that we hold so dear is relative to human cognition. Some abstract principles are quite probably universally true for all intelligent life forms in the universe. However, they may only be partially true or very narrowly true because of the incredibly limited understanding mankind has.

Ideas like the triangle and equations like y=mx+c are self reliant constructs that will always remain true in the limited domain for which they are conceptualized. Their limited domain of application is what validates them.

The caveat is that Mathematical ideas we’ve derived are not necessarily the most complete model of the phenomenon it seeks to describe in the universe. Mathematical constructs are not inherently wrong. They may however be poorly or incompletely designed. (Cue: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem).

Just as how we found water on the moon, broke the earth’s gravity, operated on the human heart and brain, cured smallpox,  broke the sound barrier, put a man on the moon among many other achievements, one day we’ll break the speed of light, traverse black holes and teleport matter with indiscretion.

New Rule:

All evidence is only partial proof. Certainty is a mild form of arrogance. There’s probably no such thing as science fiction, as much as it is science speculation. So don’t quote that text book so tersely. They’ll need to reprint it soon.

4. Longevity does not validate Truth

George Bush

This man knows more about the science of deception than he lets on.

If you tell a lie long enough to enough people, after a while, they’ll eventually start to believe it. People are animals that instinctively trust herd logic – whether or not it pans out for the greater good or not. Thus if you were to constantly repeat the same lie over and over and over again, sooner or later, the herd will buy it and everyone will start to believe in it, without question.

One of the most fascinating things I’ve found about the American idiocracy, is their willingness to believe in something that has been told to them over and over again, even though it is without substantiation. In fact, I’ve gone ahead and make a list of these things. I’m pretty sure I’m going to get some irate comments about this, but it’s worth mentioning even for the sake of debate:

  1. There was legitimate reason to get into the Vietnam war
  2. George Bush won the 2000 election fair and square
  3. 19 incompetent foreign terrorists could have pulled off 9/11 on their own
  4. The terrorist alert colour codes are a useful warning mechanism
  5. The Iraq War was somehow linked to 9/11
  6. There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
  7. Iran is a dangerous anti-American state
  8. Barack Obama was not born in the USA and he is Muslim Socialist.
  9. Socialism is a dangerous thing
  10. Government regulation is evil

…I could go on, but you see the point. Over the last eight years, so much rubbish has filled the airwaves with such longevity, that it is no small wonder that the hapless denizens of the TV generation soak it up like limestone slowly absorbs water. Sooner or later, speculation becomes indisputable fact.

But this propensity is not something that is unique to the American Idiocracy. You will find the same type of behaviour in humans right across the globe. Atheists convince each other that religion is intrinsically evil. Theists convince each other that a 2,000 year old hybrid mythology is somehow original. Then there are urban legends of all kinds that still exist today in many forms.

The longer an idea stays around in human epistemology, the greater the likelihood that it will be accepted as being truthful. After a while, everyone will just accept it without even trying to do original research to see if it really is true. People will even laugh mockingly if you dare question an age old idea.

I can just imagine the mocking Galileo endured when he suggested that the earth goes around the sun. What about Christopher Columbus? People thought he was sailing to his doom. What about John Forbes Nash, who questioned Adam Smith’s theories in Economics? The list goes on in perpetuity.

I can imagine within the next 50 years, some cocky young scientist is going to question Einstein’s theories of relativity, only to be scorned by the physics community, until he builds the first FTL engine powered by water. It’s a pity I won’t live long enough to see the look on their faces when over 100 years of accepted theoretical physics gets thrown out the window in a blip of genius.

It’s no different within the Christian faith:

To this very day, I still hear some Christians saying that Adam and Eve ate an apple in the Garden of Eden (the Bible did not mention the fruit by name) or that God helps those that help themselves (there’s no such scripture at all) as well as saying that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute (again, there is nowhere in the Bible that says this). These are all popular scriptural fallacies.

The truth is that one day, some guy in a pulpit made an inaccurate declaration that the congregation never bothered to validate by reading the Bible themselves. It happens every Saturday and Sunday. If you preach the same nonsense long enough, people will eventually assume the Bible backs it up.

But why stop there? Most Christians don’t know about Attis, Dionysus, Mishra, Krishna, Horus and the like. Most Christians still celebrate the pagan rituals called “Christmas“. None of these people have dared to question their faith because they assumed it was true from being around for centuries.

Isn’t it odd how Christians are completely oblivious to the fact that they’re practicing a pagan religion, yet will route wiccans and other pagan ritualists for being just the same? Ignorance it seems, is not without a sense of irony.

New Rule:

Just as how we believed for decades that the moon was dry, for centuries that the earth was flat and for millennia that the elements were gods, I urge you to consider the bothersome reality that lies have a longer shelf life than the truth.

5. Truth is a function of belief, not proof

Evolution

What if I told you that I can prove that women prefer men that lie? It wouldn’t be hard to rig a survey or a psychometric examination to validate this claim. In fact, there are many “scientific” surveys that are conducted daily to validate this or that claim. However, the scientific method is inherently flawed.

I’m pretty sure I’m going to hear from a few scientists (or highly educated people) about that last statement, because they believe in the method. Well that’s exactly the point, isn’t it? Who says that there isn’t a better method?

We believe in the method because we have convinced ourselves that it is the most objective way to obtain hard data – yet this is how black people were proven to be stupid, vile, soulless animals. Science did that – even though there is enough evidence to the contrary. How do we explain this anomaly?

Truth is a function of one’s willingness to believe, not in their willingness to prove. This is why all “scientific” surveys that set out to find the truth are automatically skewed by the intentions of the researchers. Everyone has an agenda and thus, something to prove. Objectivity is a matter of opinion.

Sure, there are people out there who are willing to find the hard cold truth. The Human G-Nome project is one such initiative. But even when they discover some secrets of the human gnome, they are terrified of publishing their findings due to their awareness of the vile propensities of human nature.

Even when you take the co-relational evidence out of the equation, who’s to say that the data will remain valid after the last box has been checked? The universe is in a constant state of flux. If you cross a river at noon and cross it again 5 minutes later, technically, it isn’t the same river you crossed earlier.

So when a survey is published that proves this or that, even 10 years after the data has become invalid, people still feel the need to quote the survey – even if there is more recent evidence to suggest otherwise. It’s the same way how Christian fundamentalists quote the Bible out of context and Muslim Jihadists pervert the teachings of the Koran. It’s what they choose to believe.

Christianity and Islam agree on as many things as do scientists who believe in Quantum Loop Gravity or String Theory. Evolutionary Theory and Intelligent Design proponents also agree on some things. In fact, you will find Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons who agree on a few things. But this means nothing.

When I first discovered atheists who disagreed with scientists, that was the first time I realised that neither team was being compelled by some mutually indisputable train of logic. In both cases, like the cultural affinity of Christianity and Islam, they were being compelled by their preference, not the proof.

This ultimately reveals that the perception of truth lies almost squarely inside the head of the individual. Take the use of language for example. Do you notice that expletives are indigenous to culture? Even where two countries use the same language, expletives in one country are nonsense in another.

So if someone uses an expletive of his native origin on national television in another country, he wouldn’t be crucified in the same way as if he had done so at home. The philosophical implications of this paradox insinuate that the double standards governing this issue are inextricably bound to culture.

Similarly, whatever we have determined to be truthful has a very strong cultural context to it. It becomes unique to the individual(s) in such a way that it’s effectively a facet of their cultural construct. This is why things like Religion have such a strong cultural context. Judaism and Christianity both carry principles that are steeped in cultural ideology. Islam is no different.

Despite this obvious caveat, most religious practitioners (like western Seventh Day Aventists) have yet to realise that their mythological preference automatically implies cultural adoption or as it is in most cases, indoctrination.

No amount of proof will convince someone of anything once they’ve chosen to believe an idea contrary to that proof. This is why whatever we can validate as truth is really relative to the individual. I’m sure there are still scientists out there who think Pluto is a planet. They will let the evidence be damned.

New Rule:

The existence of proof is not quite as important as the interpretation thereof. Two people can observe the same proof and use it in two completely different ways and it will remain completely valid. Ergo, proof is ultimately subjective.

6. The Truth does not set you free

The Kiss of Judas, Jean Bourdichon c. 1500

Judas Iscariot, the enabler and greatest unsung hero of Christianity

I am sure when the character of Jesus insinuated that the truth will set men free (John 8:32) he was not referring to anything outside of freedom from sin – although that’s debatable.  For one could even argue that a lie that saves lives is better than a truth that destroys them. Yet, many people continue to quote this passage of scripture out of context due to incidences of point 5 above.

It comes as no surprise then that Judas is villified by Christians, despite the fact that if he didn’t betray Jesus, they wouldn’t inherit salvation. In fact, on facebook when my status update read: “I need 30 pieces of silver“, the misplaced outrage of my christian colleagues shows that they couldn’t handle the reality of anyone betraying Jesus – although Judas never requested silver.

Truth be told, Judas couldn’t handle it either. He did off himself shortly afterwards. One way or another, the truth of his betrayal was that it was necessary and that God himself designed the outcome that way. I am therefore fascinated by the ignorance of my colleagues. Judas should be glorified!

Can you imagine if the worst atrocities that have been committed in our history were for some greater good? Do you think you could handle that? When emperor Qin sought to unite the six kingdoms of the orient, genocide was an inevitability – yet, without that act of conquest, China wouldn’t exist today.

I’m not saying that the end justifies the means, although Machiavelli wasn’t enirely off his rocker. Rather, the horrific reality is usually inversely proportional to the utilitarian benefit that was ultimately derived by everyone else.

Besides, time heals all wounds.

Surely if one’s conscience is weighed down with something, telling the truth may liberate them from the guilt – or land them into even bigger trouble. Many men have learned the hard way that there’s no point in being truthful with an irrational contender, whether they be women, Republicans or Muslims.

Don’t get hung up on that sentence. You know perfectly well what I mean.

What bothers me then are those who are Deontological thinkers – people who do not have (or choose to ignore) the capacity to determine the greater good where the truth could prove to be dangerous. They’re the anti-stem cell people who fail to see the life saving benefits of science and the pro-life pundits who fail to see the suffering of the woman with child. Such is utter blindness.

The problem with these individuals is not that they lack the capacity to understand as much as they lack the will. That is why politicians (for better or worse) often find themselves telling the people what they want to hear. Similarly, some pastors won’t preach messages that would drive people away.

It has been quite well established that ignorance is bliss. What has not quite yet been established is the fact that the cost of ignorance far outweighs that of knowledge. To complicate matters further, we have to also consider that ignorance is more ubiquitous than wisdom. Humanity thrives on deception.

One of the most salient points that came out of the Wachowski Brother’s Matrix trilogy is that there’s no way to defeat human ignorance without simultaneously destroying humanity itself. Because we’re pleasure driven creatures, we far prefer the bliss of ignorance in enslavement than the vitriol of knowledge and wisdom that freedom gives. We just can’t handle the truth.

Even though no god intervenes in our lives, we would still prefer to believe that one did so. Even though death is the inevitable end of all life, we fantasize that it isn’t. We tell ourselves these things not because we believe them to be true, but rather because life is too a terrible thing to have without them.

So can you imagine trying to get someone to let go of an idea that brings them such joy and comfort? That’s the same thing as telling a young child to eat its vegetables. It will take years for it to wean itself off the sweetness that it has become so accustomed to in its relatively short span of existence.

In fact, I recall a hymn we used to sing in church when I was much younger, that had a line which read “Even if there was no heaven, I would still love him [Jesus]”. Although I was just 16 years old, I knew this was utter rubbish.

Although my church elders wouldn’t understand Cognitive Dissonance even if I broke it down to them all Fischer-Price™ like, it was very clear to me even then that the hymn writer obviously knew very little about human nature.

By extension, imagine the only son who has to tell his father that he is gay, or the single mother whose daughter has become pregnant, the pastor whose child has renounced their religion or the president who has to break his own promises. None of these people will be set free by the revelation of the truth.

Fragile psyches abound with more regularity than the minds capable of discerning such things. The truth must therefore be applied sparingly. There’s no point destroying such minds in the process of delivering the payload. After all, that was the whole point of inventing the hypocrisy of political correctness.

New Rule:

Despite the fact that knowledge removes all fear, there is a certain kind of ignorance that fears knowledge more than fear itself. Ergo, if we were to persist with alacrity in telling each other the hard cold truth about the world at all times, then our lives would be excessively violent, brutish and short.

7. There is only faith, and nothing more

Science has failed us before – but our faith drives us forward

The truth is that you have to accept anything being purported as truth within the context of faith. There is enough proof to prove almost anything you want to prove. It probably doesn’t matter what side of the fence you choose to sit.

You have to have faith in God. You have to have faith in friends, family, your job, your marriage and even in science. When we put our trust in science and it goes wrong, we don’t put away science do we? Of course not. We try again.

This is concordantly why Christians assert that Jesus never fails – because imaginary friends only have imaginary powers. Our faith is what makes it real. This is why televangelists are often known as “faith healers“. We are doing nothing different when we put our faith in a scientific theory and test it.

We have faith in evolution, in astrophysics, in mathematics and even in that chair in which you’re sitting, reading this. One doesn’t have to be religious or a non believer to recognize the raw unbridled power of blind faith. We built an entire civilization around it after all – from the wheel to the internet.

New Rule:

Either way, we should be humble in whatever we choose to declare as being the truth. Our faith is what gives the “truth” its value. Even so, our faith only proves something to be true so far. Everything else is equally relative.

Advertisements
  1. Jon
    January 18, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    Who is finding holes in evolutionary theory? Name an example of where someone has found a hole in evolutionary theory.

    • February 7, 2011 at 8:15 pm

      The Fossil Record is incomplete. Everyone knows that. The more we discover, the more of the record we complete, but the more holes are created. It’s a recurring cycle.

  2. Biagio Bartolucci
    December 9, 2010 at 5:05 am

    I am always searching online for articles that can help me. I discovered this amazing blog and I just can’t stop reading. Wow! Thank you for writing this! Do you mind if I refer to your blog for a book I am writing? I would appreciate it very much!

    Grazie!

  3. Brandon Malave
    April 1, 2010 at 10:13 pm

    Correction to my implied post. I have read that dopamine might be a possible cause of the hallucinations (besides the REM Int), not serotonin – for the hallucinations. It is hard for me to think that serotonin would cause anything but the calming mood usually associated with an NDE.

  4. Brandon Malave
    April 1, 2010 at 9:49 pm

    I’ll have to follow up when I have time. Thanks for the response. A lot of what you wrote reminds me of something S. Blackmore has said. Dr. Parnia seems to be conducting research on the matter as well to offer counter conclusions. I do not think the verdict is out on the matter in general. I have read similar conclusions to what you have stated and I have read rebuttals. I think the latest mechanistic theory being advocated is the one that incorporates REM Intrusion as part of the explanation on the hallucinations. My assumption is you did not find any of the rebuttals to the physiological theories satisfying and that is why you have settled with a mechanistic conclusion.

    My comment does not add much to the discussion, I apologize, I am devoted to another matter for the time being. Hopefully when I do follow up, I’ll offer more insight.

Comment pages
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s