Nice point Vam, we could theorize a lot but much of what we know comes from examining and describing our immediate environment. In my experience inquiry is a good pedagogic model for this very reason, it calls attention to where ignorance lies so we can form better questions. In the process we learn to interact with the process of building knowledge and interacting in that domain, I think Archytas alludes to this in another recent topic chiding the attempt at training students (vs teaching?). I know it sounds dangerously reductionist to say "know thyself and all else follows" but when the chain falls in place there's no denying.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > Define ? It only describes, as do writers, or explains, as do > psychologists et al ! > > Like " leaders," it takes us from one point to another whether, as of > now, we want to or not... *sigh* > > On Nov 11, 3:28 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> Kuhan - I took a look and found some interesting angles. Maybe you >> could do a bit of a summary and see if that interests anyone here? >> Otherwise I'll leave your message up and can it if no one is. We >> don't generally allow cross-posting - but at least this isn't elixir >> of life on planet Zog. >> >> On Nov 10, 4:16 pm, Kuhan Chandru <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Comments please >> > athttp://cellrelics.com/2011/11/10/why-science-cant-define-life/
