Hi Brad
Perhaps we can agree that _both_ the scientific method and those who apply it
(or less!) are "only human" i.e. imperfect ? At least in the discussed case
of GE, the latter aspect (corruption of the applyers) seems much more relevant
than the former (imperfection of the scientific method). At any rate, what
you say about the prevalence of corruption actually enforces my "message"...
Maybe we can extend it to the following (paraphrasing G.C.Lichtenberg):
"Those who understand _only_ science, don't fully understand science either."
Greetings,
Chris
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 13:20:28 -0400, Brad McCormick wrote:
> Christoph Reuss wrote:
> > > Worldwide conformity kills Kiwis' GM-free option
> > >
> > > Sunday Star Times, NZ
> > > March 21, 1999
> > >
> > > THE genetically modified food controversy is not just about what we eat.
> > > There are far larger dimensions to the debate, such as the lack of
> > > democratic decision-making, the claims of science to supremacy over other
> > > paradigms and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > For the record: The pro-GE position is not based on science, but on the
> > corruption of science, and on economic ideas (monopolization of markets).
>
> Might we note that all science, at least since Galileo was made to abjure
> the heliocentric hypothesis by the Church, has been "corrupted" in the sense
> that it has kept its nose to the ground (the empirical world), and
> worn blinders to keep from applying rigor to the study of its own ongoing
> social process? As Husserl might have said, we have never yet been fully
> scientific, since we have not included the event of doing science in the
> domain of scientific inquiry (including the implications that would
> have for the qustion of what is/are scientific method(s), since the
> study of empirical phenomena may require different methods than the
> study of the act of studying empirical phenomena, etc.)....
[snip]
