Hi all Do we not have to deal with many situations and decisions where the evidence is incomplete? And yet we still have decide what to do and how to live. Especially when it comes to what is good and bad, possible and impossible to achieve? Above all else science has to assume to start with that the universe is comprehensible (a point made by the philosopher of science Nicholas Maxwell). And every research programme has to assume that it is more worth pursuing than other programmes that we are chosing to leave or postpone. Experience is vital but the past is not always a guide to the future in a dynamic universe. Due to DQ we have to cope and live often with incomplete knowledge. Due to DQ, i.e. there is more to life and reality than SQ, we always have to be open to new and emerging aspects of reality. The SOM based Quest for Certainty (see John Dewey's book on this) is ultimately doomed. We can expand our knowledge of SQ but this expansion is endless.
David M Faith is a rejection > of evidence and logical cohesion. I've been learning > quite a bit by what you've been saying. Bravo! > > > lots of snow falling now, > SA > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
