> With respect to your scientist friend - science is not strictly speaking
> capable of 'proving' at all.
You can't be more right on that one, science only propose models to
explain nature. Most theories are approximation; even quantum mechanics
does not predit with 100% accuracy: it can predict a one particle system
pretty good, but as soon as a two particle system arise one is toasted
(Helium for instance), so I let you imagine the amount of tweaking one
needs to attempt in explaining carbon or even molecule behaviors...
> > I've had some troubling debates with a few scientists recently. One in
> > particular, whom Pirsig would almost certainly label a logical positivist.
> A
> > type of person who absolutely refuses to believe that there is *any*
> aspect
> > of reality that can't be detected by science. If science can't prove it's
> > real, then it's not real. Period.
As far as I know science doesn't even dare using the concept of "real",
but only stick with "observable": current science stick with what they can
detect with experiment, but has no mean of testing of those observable
represent the whole "reality" (if one can even think of reality as a
absolute concept).
Aloha,
-rv,
---------------
herve@hawaii.edu
"Il vaudrait mieux pour dieu qu'il n'existe pas" Albert Camus
so... get MOOed! @ KccMOO http://moo.kcc.hawaii.edu:9999
-------------------------------------------------------------
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:40 BST