From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 12 2003 - 20:18:10 GMT
Erin,
Now I'm confused. I don't know where I'm saying that stories and science
are separate in the way you are suggesting. Redescription is the most
powerful tool in the philosopher's toolbox and redescribing evolution as a
story of creativity, certainly looks interesting and provacative. In fact,
I have a book up on my shelf called Narratives of Human Evolution which
basically does just that.
What I'm trying to say is that science works well with rocks and literary
criticism with texts. That doesn't mean scientists can't enage in the
analysis of texts or literary critics in the analysis of rocks, but I doubt
we'd call the scientist's textual analysis "science" or the literary
critic's physical contribution "literary criticism." I certainly
acknowledge that there's a thing called "scientific literature" and that we
can look at it in a literary way. That's what the book I mentioned above
attempts to do. Scientists can be interested in scope, but I don't think
we'd want to call Einstein's speculations on God "science."
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 12 2003 - 20:12:44 GMT