Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NOMA - Is this the answer?
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 81 (17403)
09-14-2002 12:46 AM


I have recently begun to read a book that is entitled Rock of Ages by Stephan Gould. It advocates NOMA - or Non-Overlapping Magesteria. Has anyone read this book or know anything about this? Does anyone agree or disagree with the proposal he set forth in this book? And can this not be the answer or a good way to now base our debates on, NON-OVERLAPPING MAGESTERIA?
I am interested in what you guys have to say about what you think.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day
[This message has been edited by acmhttu001_2006, 09-14-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Quetzal, posted 09-17-2002 3:15 AM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 2 of 81 (17569)
09-17-2002 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by acmhttu001_2006
09-14-2002 12:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
I have recently begun to read a book that is entitled Rock of Ages by Stephan Gould. It advocates NOMA - or Non-Overlapping Magesteria. Has anyone read this book or know anything about this? Does anyone agree or disagree with the proposal he set forth in this book? And can this not be the answer or a good way to now base our debates on, NON-OVERLAPPING MAGESTERIA?
I am interested in what you guys have to say about what you think.

Hi Anne,
I finally got a chance to come back to this post (sorry it took so long). To distill SJ Gould's idea down a bit, NOMA (for anyone who doesn't know what it is) is essentially a philosophical position that postulates there are questions which science cannot address, and which rightly belong in the purview of religion. This notably includes such areas as "meaning" and "purpose", "love" and "ethics", etc. Gould's idea was that limiting each magisterium would permit a reconciliation between science and religion, creating a sort of modus vivendi between the two worldviews. (Please correct me if I've mistated the case.) Gould saw himself as a great conciliator.
I don't completely disagree with him. However, I don't completely agree with him, either.
On the one hand, I fully concur that totally subjective statements such as "I love my wife." are not amenable to scientific analysis. Simply put, there is no way for an independent observer to accurately replicate or document what the declarer means - the essence of science. No personal, subjectively defined emotion, testamony, or individual experience can be scientifically evaluated. On the other hand, the specific neuro-physiological responses associated with the emotion CAN be evaluated. With a large enough sample, a verifiable, replicatable statistical average of the responses can be gained - meaning that science has indeed analyzed the complex emotion "love". Note, this does NOT change the entirely subjective connotation each individual imputes to "love", but it does eliminate it from the exclusive province of any religion.
Moreover, attributes such as "purpose" and "meaning of life" are cultural affects. There is no universally accepted "meaning of life" - each culture or society defines this differently depending on the subjective values they place on life, etc. Whereas I can certainly agree that biology may not be in a position to analyze it, I disagree with Gould that the subject should be abandoned to religion. It is certainly within the purview of so-called "soft sciences" such as sociology, cultural anthropology, etc. The relatively new field of sociobiology may also have something to say on the issue - at least in the sense of being able to objectively analyze the evolutionary underpinnings of a particular society's view on "Why are we here". Worse still, no two religions or sects agree on the question - meaning that religion itself is unable to actually address the issue.
Religion HAS no exclusive province, even on the deepest philosophical level. To assume otherwise allows religion to ascribe to itself powers and abilities it doesn't justifiably have. It allows it to define such things as "morals" and "right and wrong" which are totally subjective cultural values. And before the fundies burn any crosses on my computer, I am NOT a moral relativist - I do not hold to the post-modernist belief that all definitions of morality (for example) are equally valid. However, this is not from some metaphysical philosophy, but rather from a sociobiological standpoint some moral positions are non-adaptive.
Interested in hearing your reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-14-2002 12:46 AM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 09-17-2002 11:35 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 11 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-18-2002 4:31 PM Quetzal has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 3 of 81 (17601)
09-17-2002 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Quetzal
09-17-2002 3:15 AM


I will return to the first in the series of posts to show by qouting the POPE that Gould could have been a bit more sentential when displacing the creationist insistance in this instance for I have come to consider Steve's Philosophy flawed but I like what he says about compartive zoology in the name of Aggasiz. I do not think the loss of purpose is "cultural". 9-11 proved otherwise to me. Gould wrote a few pages on this as well.
i AM Not so sure thaT there is as much magic in Egpyt than the prof had led us to believe for I can still not discount Jerimiah 23:24 "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LOrd. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.
and
"I have heard what the profets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed."
Concerning the Fox Natl geo special last nite and further from my Grandfather's speech at the 1965 Honors Convocation SUNY fredonia :
"As a result of this philosophy, man's concept of his universe underwent radical changes.
Some humanists have charged that science has dealt mankind four serious body blows:
1)Galileo removed man from the center of the universem,
2)Newton made God unnecessary,
3)Darwin thrust man back into the animal kingdom, and
4)Freud put him at the mercy of his subconscious.
These blows to man's solar plexus are held to explain modern man's self-contempt and justify his giving up will and responsibility. We are told that "scientifically speaking" man is altogether a conditioned and helpless being.
The scientific creed is that man must make himself a edisembodied eye before the universe...This may all be very well for certain scientific workers, but, to most men, the abdication of purpose seems to equate with a denial of life within."
If I am still not clear read two more verses "The profet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. what is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord...
but if resistence still can not find the handle to the place spaced consider that Stan continued to say..."parentheticaly, since scientists are also men, we have a second super-imposed spectrum" which again may not be mere magic if for instance fundamental series explain energy absorption in the former space attribuited to electrons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Quetzal, posted 09-17-2002 3:15 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 09-17-2002 12:08 PM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 7 by nos482, posted 09-18-2002 7:36 AM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 12 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-18-2002 4:53 PM Brad McFall has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 81 (17606)
09-17-2002 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brad McFall
09-17-2002 11:35 AM


Actually I never said "man had no purpose". I merely said that such purpose depended exclusively on the value placed on it by the particular culture. It's a quantifiable affect, and hence amenable to scientific scrutiny. Not the sole purview of any religion.
I also obviously disagree with the following:
quote:
"These blows to man's solar plexus are held to explain modern man's self-contempt and justify his giving up will and responsibility. We are told that "scientifically speaking" man is altogether a conditioned and helpless being.
The scientific creed is that man must make himself a edisembodied eye before the universe...This may all be very well for certain scientific workers, but, to most men, the abdication of purpose seems to equate with a denial of life within."
I don't believe that simply by adopting the assumption as a working hypothesis that the universe is inherently knowable and accessible to the human intellect means we are doomed to "self contempt", etc. On the contrary, I can't think of any endeavor that is more intrinsically uplifting (if you'll pardon the metaphysical/philosophical reference).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 09-17-2002 11:35 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 09-17-2002 12:16 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 13 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-18-2002 4:55 PM Quetzal has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 5 of 81 (17607)
09-17-2002 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Quetzal
09-17-2002 12:08 PM


My grandfather said that there were TWO spectra man-made and on purpose but that there was some denial in the creating of both by humans and that he doubted this was soemthing for all science to continue. I think GOuld disagreed with me on this and this is why he asked me what vegtables I had in my brown bag yet he knew full well but I as the two spectra can be writ by drag and drop were not picked up at CU even thought we were using this technology and I was called the vegtable in this culture that could not even at this place do what AD White said the place was meant to do. I do not speak of US court invovlement in the same but there is even some overlap here.
I understand that you may have some reservations with Steve as well but as I intend to show more about the POPES position I think it a bit premature to conclude about "Full Philosophy" as I heard being said in Providence Legislature for any of this stuff that would be rigorously CATHOLIC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 09-17-2002 12:08 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 09-18-2002 2:03 AM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 14 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-18-2002 4:58 PM Brad McFall has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 81 (17642)
09-18-2002 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brad McFall
09-17-2002 12:16 PM


I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about the Vatican's position on NOMA - sounds more or less to me that they buy Gould's argument. Don't know, 'cause I'm not Catholic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 09-17-2002 12:16 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Brad McFall, posted 09-18-2002 10:34 AM Quetzal has not replied

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 81 (17665)
09-18-2002 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brad McFall
09-17-2002 11:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
I will return to the first in the series of posts to show by qouting the POPE that Gould could have been a bit more sentential when displacing the creationist insistance in this instance for I have come to consider Steve's Philosophy flawed but I like what he says about compartive zoology in the name of Aggasiz. I do not think the loss of purpose is "cultural". 9-11 proved otherwise to me. Gould wrote a few pages on this as well.
i AM Not so sure thaT there is as much magic in Egpyt than the prof had led us to believe for I can still not discount Jerimiah 23:24 "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LOrd. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.
and
"I have heard what the profets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed."
Concerning the Fox Natl geo special last nite and further from my Grandfather's speech at the 1965 Honors Convocation SUNY fredonia :
"As a result of this philosophy, man's concept of his universe underwent radical changes.
Some humanists have charged that science has dealt mankind four serious body blows:
1)Galileo removed man from the center of the universem,
2)Newton made God unnecessary,
3)Darwin thrust man back into the animal kingdom, and
4)Freud put him at the mercy of his subconscious.
These blows to man's solar plexus are held to explain modern man's self-contempt and justify his giving up will and responsibility. We are told that "scientifically speaking" man is altogether a conditioned and helpless being.
The scientific creed is that man must make himself a edisembodied eye before the universe...This may all be very well for certain scientific workers, but, to most men, the abdication of purpose seems to equate with a denial of life within."
If I am still not clear read two more verses "The profet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. what is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord...
but if resistence still can not find the handle to the place spaced consider that Stan continued to say..."parentheticaly, since scientists are also men, we have a second super-imposed spectrum" which again may not be mere magic if for instance fundamental series explain energy absorption in the former space attribuited to electrons.

Man makes his own purpose. This is one of the most wonderous times to be alive.
It is only the overly religious which have to define the purpose of thier lives as be nothing more than giving praise to some mythical being. That is a sad life and proves what was said in my thread "Why People want to believe there is a god".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 09-17-2002 11:35 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 09-18-2002 11:49 AM nos482 has replied
 Message 15 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-18-2002 5:00 PM nos482 has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 8 of 81 (17683)
09-18-2002 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Quetzal
09-18-2002 2:03 AM


I think the CHRUCH as a position in writing and Gould one on the philosophy of science. More later on the plenum vs the continuum and Croizat on Catholisim and Panbiogoegraphy for the answer to ? do seeds fall to earth, sun, somewher elese???
Q, this is from memory and so I may have change it as I read again where I may have marginalized Gould's text. All is not White Mythology circled squares...etc for any crack Gould Did depict.
Boltzmann wrote, "At present it appears that we cannot define infinity in any other way than as the limit of ever increasing finite way than as the limit of ever increasing finite quantities; at least, until now no one has been able to fashion any other concept of infinity that can be grasped." Whether or not this refers rigorously to Bosocovich or the itch that Dean may neve have disembodied his eye for now with Pope John Paul one may in the continuance of some common steady motion fancy such fashion as Cantor did send info to the Pope of his day about this infinity Pascal did not have but doubled if.
But to do so would require more than a denail of Gould's philosophy in attention(to Croizat's position on the man ornot) to the Church's text on the essence of the matter in man's linej of ascent to descend into the popularization that still argues against any technicality in error.
For instance Boltzmann said, "In order to find the sutiable assumptions, we have to bear in mind that we must presume, for the sake of explanation of apparently continuous bodies that of each species of atoms, or, more generally, mechanical individuals an exceedingly great number be present in the most diverse intitial conditions. In order to treat this assumption mathematically, a special science has been invented, whose aim is not..." and if this in fact referred to Gibbs1902 "The only error into which one can fall, is the want of agreement between the premises and the conclusions." then the independence in the writing of Pope Paul need NOT be in the infinity of Gould's fracted breach of a position stewed or not if evolutionary theory only used in that philosophy componentibilty infinity of which it has had reason to do and discuss.
I would need a closer textual synthesis to show the two sentences I may be refrecening not "he will be shown wanting"(about Bill Clinton) to from THE POPE are as theyappear this time to me to be.
Gibbs requires if ANY assumption was that some one time be given. Only God... I would take this as the timing of Cantor to his' Pope. There may be a science of adaptations that does not first agree as to gene frequiencies but matches shapes in the process of forming such etc.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 09-18-2002 2:03 AM Quetzal has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 9 of 81 (17687)
09-18-2002 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by nos482
09-18-2002 7:36 AM


My grandfather was agnostic to atheisitic so are you saying that a generation does not exist?? I can only conclude that you would have to agree with ICR that evolutionists are religious to "overly" religious which is something I never thought. GOuld was correct to criticize the cone of diversity in science and my grandfather while not this religious as far as I know kept his teaching of "evolution" well within the clearly communicated and understood version of either side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nos482, posted 09-18-2002 7:36 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by nos482, posted 09-18-2002 12:30 PM Brad McFall has replied

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 81 (17696)
09-18-2002 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Brad McFall
09-18-2002 11:49 AM


Originally posted by Brad McFall:
My grandfather was agnostic to atheisitic so are you saying that a generation does not exist??
Irrelevant. Since atheism and agnosticism are not cohesive belief systems with any common rites, rituals, or doctrine what one atheist or agnostic may do or believe is totally unrelated to others may do. This is not the same with theists, though, since they do have common beliefs in this regard.
I can only conclude that you would have to agree with ICR that evolutionists are religious to "overly" religious which is something I never thought.
Not only do you not know that evolution is, but apparently what religion is either.
Religion:
1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
There is nothing supernatural, or divine, about evolution.
GOuld was correct to criticize the cone of diversity in science and my grandfather while not this religious as far as I know kept his teaching of "evolution" well within the clearly communicated and understood version of either side.
Knowing creationists this is either a misquote or quoting out of context.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 09-18-2002 11:49 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-18-2002 5:04 PM nos482 has replied
 Message 18 by Brad McFall, posted 09-18-2002 6:26 PM nos482 has not replied

acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 81 (17723)
09-18-2002 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Quetzal
09-17-2002 3:15 AM


Hi Quetzal,
I know about getting to posts, this is a huge website with so much going on. I have not been able to reply to my topic that I have started.
You did not mistate the case. That is an accurate case statement. I would agree with that.
"I don't completely disagree with him. However, I don't completely agree with him, either."
I am glad I am not the only one who believes this way. And yes the examples you gave coincided with mine. You cannot scientifically evualte emotions but you can evualte the effects of them.
I have not heard of socibiology. The hard sciences do not as of yet accept religion yet.
When you say two sects do not agree with each other in a religious setting. I agree. But I believe that all relgions - any belief system that deals with the supernatural or why we are here, should be put in the Magesterium of Religion. Science cannot and will no even have the "Deity" in mind while it is pursuing truth. That is just not the way that science is set up.
The soft sciences are not considered to be real "science" even though they may take some things from the established science. Would you agree with this? Professor told me this. He considers the hard sciences to be real science and the others cheap imitations of them. I do not know much about the soft sciences, so I defer judgement until I find out more about them.
You said that religioin has no exclusive province. Christains today claim that it is the one true way, based off of Jesus saying "I am the Way.....," This sounds pretty exclusive to me. Either believe or go to hell. Not much of a choice here.
"To assume otherwise allows religion to ascribe to itself powers and abilities it doesn't justifiably have. It allows it to define such things as "morals" and "right and wrong" which are totally subjective cultural values. "
Do not all religions define morals and values anyway. No matter how conservative or liberal they may be. Even Wicca which is an accept all, has its morals and values. NO religion does not define morals or values. The religions say you have to do something in order to communicate with the supernatural - "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling[not sure of the last part of the quote] - Christainity, Buddhist work for enlightment, Wiccan works to become one with divine. Any religion states how you should act or be in order to reach the "heaven", "enlightment", or "becoming one with the divine."
"some moral positions are non-adaptive."
So can you come up with some examples for me?
Your reply was thought provoking and one of the best that I have seen in this entire forum. Thanks, and anxiously awaiting your answers.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Quetzal, posted 09-17-2002 3:15 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Quetzal, posted 09-19-2002 2:52 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 81 (17724)
09-18-2002 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brad McFall
09-17-2002 11:35 AM


Good post, but I disagree with some points that you made.
"Galileo removed man from the center of the universem,".
First of all, the church was the one who put man in the center of the Universe. It was considered heretical to believe that anything other than the earth was the center of the Universe. No where in the Bible does it say that Man is the center of the Universe. If Man was the center of the Universe, the bible would be mostly about men, but it is not it is about God and his Son Jesus, not man. All Galileo did was to open the door to astromical science. And he also opened the door for humankind to begin to think and explore for themselves rather than have someone tell them their version of the truth. This gave man the power to test the validity of things and the right to accept it if it is true and the right to refute it if it was false.
"Newton made God unnecessary" - How can discovering the laws of physics which the world operates by today be such a detrimental thing to making God unncecessary? [I know that many of his laws have been revised due to several theories]. All Newton did was to question to make sense of the Universe [how it worked]. He also was a co-inventor of Calculus - I LOVE CALCULUS. If God did exist would God allow anything to happen in "his creation" to make him uncessary? If a God existed I believe that he would not allow anything to happen to make him unecessary unless WE CHOSE TO MAKE HIM THAT WAY. Every human being has a choice, noone else makes it for them. Newton did not make God uncessary, the people who looked at Newton's work may have been. If Newton made God unnecessary then let's dimiss all of science, becuase that basically can be argued that it dismissed God, becuase we understand by sight and not by faith. How logical is that?
"Darwin thrust man back into the animal kingdom" Where in the world did you get this. First of, I need to explain the classification system. Man is classified as an animal, becuase he is not a plant, protist, fungi, or any other things. Man is a mammal becuase he shares the same charactersitc as those. It is all based on evolutionary descent and characteristics which are similar to other organisms. I agree with the classification system. Dare I think we are above the littlest ameoba, when we might have orginiated from such a creature? Do I dare call myself above everything else when we have the basic same genetic structure. Read the first chapter of "Genome." To me this is the best way to classify man, there is no other way unless one is egotistical about his species and classifies him above all things, Thank goodness science is not egotistical.
"Freud put him at the mercy of his subconscious."
First of all, the subconscious was there before Freud put it into words. I do believe that men were dreawming and having thoughts that they did not know where it came from. Freud just gave it a name. Is naming something puttin man to the mercy what was identified? We better stop naming things or we are going to be in trouble,'
"As a result of this philosophy, man's concept of his universe underwent radical changes."
I do not think that one little philosophy could change an entire world of men's concept of the universe. I believe that it would be an accumlulation of all the philosophies of the world. Hold on, no the last sentence is a factor. It is MAN WHO DECIDES IN WHAT HE WILL BELIEVE, it is nothing that makes the deicision for him. Christains who are being tempted to leave the faith blame the world, or anything else rather than take the responsibility for their own actions and decisions.
"The scientific creed is that man must make himself a edisembodied eye before the universe...", I would like the reference for this quote. It is quite interesting, thought it is very untrue for many reasons I will not explain as it will make the post long.
Thanks for posting, Look forward to your reply.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 09-17-2002 11:35 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Brad McFall, posted 09-18-2002 7:21 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 81 (17725)
09-18-2002 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Quetzal
09-17-2002 12:08 PM


I would agree with this. If science does anything it makes man's hopes and dreams to survive. It allows man to become more knowledgable [mispelled] and as new discoveries are made, all it does it make it better for men. It does not encourage self-contempt. I do not know where he got this quote from.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 09-17-2002 12:08 PM Quetzal has not replied

acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 81 (17726)
09-18-2002 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brad McFall
09-17-2002 12:16 PM


Please do tell more of the Pope's postion on NOMA. I am doing a thesis for my undergraduate degree that will address NOMA.
All of you have been a great help. If you could list references, I would be mostly appreciative.
The reason I began this topic, becuase it interested me very much and I knew that this was the topic to base my thesis on.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 09-17-2002 12:16 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Brad McFall, posted 09-19-2002 4:22 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 81 (17727)
09-18-2002 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nos482
09-18-2002 7:36 AM


I would agree. For it is LIFE to make my own ideas and have the freedom to make them.
I have read your thread, and I have not had the chance to post on it yet, becuase I am still following the argument and also there are so many boards, one cannot get to them all in one day.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nos482, posted 09-18-2002 7:36 AM nos482 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024