>Reply-BM: We surely differ. I am not sure the word "science" really refers to anything. >Scientific attitude exists though. About it the words and expressions like *curiosity*, *modesty*, *clarity*, *willingness to share*, etc.. comes to my mind. >I agree there has been, in the human story, attempts to build reductionist theories, but they have all failed, and with comp, by Godel II, it is necessarily so.
Here's one reasonably functional definition of science: sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns) n. 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. 2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. 3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. I find its not uncommon for those who may chafe at the "inconvenient" constraints of "science" as defined above to be somewhat dismissive of its special utility in generating knowledge about our world(s). The creationists often leverage this tactic, for instance. Just as often the label science is co-opted by occultists to lend credibility to otherwise incredible claims They'd all like to cast it as just another world view intrinsically no more valuable than any other. But it's not.. It's not because science as a methodology ignores that which is by necessity matters of faith, be it religion, mysticism, metaphysics (or Platonism?). Is science sometimes (often?) malpracticed by agenda driven egos? Certainly, but that doesn't diminish the utility or validity of science well executed. Any and all philosophers, mystics and mathemiticians can and are welcome to minimize, reject and even appropriate science as they will. And so it should be in a free society. But if and when they claim their faith-based musings are scientific or as good as same, then they are charlatans in deed as well as name, IMHO. Cheers CMR <- insert gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here ->