Your average meatball will tell you that before you have a right to
believe in something or call it scientific truth, it should be tested by
others through peer review. 

    Yet what evidence, proof or method of testing did they use to
establish the existence of other people?
    If scientific truth demands corroboration by others, then the
existence of others can never be scientifically corroborated as you can
not assume that others exist if you are trying to prove that others exist. 

    What good is the corroboration of others in the pursuit of
proof that others exist?
    What good is scientific corroboration by others if they are all dreams
and hallucinations?

    By the way I had a dream last night.  I knew I was dreaming, and I was
in a beautiful chapel with many piano's, and a number of people sitting at
them playing great and wonderful music.  I went up to them during pauses
and slapped them on the back and said "Hey you know we are dreaming!" 

    They turned to me and said "Yeah right", and went back to to their
musical musings.
    Sound familiar?

    The foundation of rigorous scientific knowledge then, namely
corroboration by others via the idea that others do in fact exist, is at
best a preference of personal observation or belief.
    In the end the knower is alone with his certainties.

    *ALL* certainties, one derives and has alone.  Any truth that comes by
virtue of others is at best a possible surmise. 

    *THAT* is Electra integrity. 


Homer Wilson Smith     News, Web, Telnet      Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959         SunOS 4.1.4 Sparc 20   Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com    info@lightlink.com     http://www.lightlink.com