"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." -- Richard Feynman.
That doesn't mean that all self-styled (or society-styled) scientists live up to Feynman's definition. No-one's perfect, while some don't understand this view.
BTW, I still want to know what the alternative is to scientific (logical-empirical) thinking.
------------------------
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ravi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 8:01 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:31244] what is science?
>
>
>
>
> i have been following the discussion about whether certain
> characteristics are intrinsic to science or not. i am curious
> about what
> the participants believe is this thing called "science"? how do you
> delineate it from other activities so as to provide meaning to your
> positions on the matter. could not the correctness of your position
> hinge on the very definition you adopt?
>
> (yes this is all old hat: if you are too strict in your
> definition, such
> as defining science as a 'method', then it has been demonstrated that
> what we accept as science often breaks this 'method' rule. if you make
> the definition more general, say a form of discovery or
> reporting, then
> many activities, that the high priests are unwilling to accept as
> science, qualify).
>
> my own suspicion (which i will try to flesh out if this
> thread proceeds)
> is that what is broadly accepted as science or scientific activity (or
> approach), by the high priests and their followers, is indeed
> inherently
> dehumanizing (i think that's carl remick's [sp?] position?) and
> dangerous. again i am reminded of martin heidegger: "science does not
> think". i must stress my use of the word 'suspicion' (since the last
> time i said something on a similar matter, i upset jks
> terribly). i wish
> i had more time to tie this thread to the thread about language and
> formalism (where i raised the question of whether a language can be
> developed that is not strictly formalized but can still lead to
> consistent and finite proofs of "truth" for various propositions).
>
> --ravi
>
>
