mark and steve:
> >> Steve: > >> What are the areas where science does not belong in your view? > > Mark: > Morality > > Steve: > Why is morality the one thing that science should not try to study? > Steve said earlier: I think this notion is better put as falliblism which does not make us skeptics doubting the possiblity of knowledge or that we now know anything. It just means that we always keep in mind that we could be wrong about any of our beliefs in particular and are willing to be proven wrong by new evidence and arguments. ------- As Royce put it, the only bedrock foundation we can count on is the existence of error. Now, if the existence of error is the one certainty, then ought not the underlying scope of science, be the study of error? This keeps science on the grounds of bedrock certainty. And when you think about it, that is exactly what scientific endeavor is all about. To uncover and label error. We don't contemplate truisms scientifically. Once we have ways of measuring the earth, we no longer debate the existence of its roundness. At least no scientifically. It is in those areas where there is doubt and controversy - possible error - that science studies and hypothesizes and tests. The proper scope of science is the study of error. The study of error is the study of morality. John 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/md/archives.html
