From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 27 2005 - 19:41:47 BST
Hi Ian,
> What I now realise (last 3 years) is that it wasn't science that was
> the problem - it was a dreadful populist caricature of science - cold
> logic, logical-positivism, scientific method, empiricism, twisted to
> political ends - rhetoric dressed as logic - that was the problem. The
> more decent science and philosphy I've read, the more I am now
> convinced that given a level playing field there is reason to set any
> bounds to scientific explanation of truth in the real world.
I suspect we're really very close on a lot of things (leaving Christianity
to one side for a second). Now, assuming that you missed out a 'no' in your
last sentence above, (ie "the more I am now convinced that given a level
playing field there is NO reason to set any bounds to scientific explanation
of truth in the real world") could you unpack what counts as 'scientific' in
that sentence? I have a suspicion it would be something I could agree with
wholeheartedly, but I'm not sure.
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Wed Apr 27 2005 - 19:54:54 BST