Hi Jonathan:
JONATHAN:
> I don't think there is any real problem Platt, simplicistic science is for
> technicians and the layman. Whether they like to philosophise or not, I'm sure
> that most would welcome my closing statement from my previous post as a
> mantra.
>
> > > The Universe is true to its nature. This is the celestial order of all
> > > things.
> >
>
> If you don't believe that, there is no point in doing science!
Would you be so good as to elaborate. For example, "The Universe is
true to its nature" is a tautology--the Universe is true to the Universe.
What am I missing?
Also, doesn't "celestial" refer to the spiritual or divine? You won't get a
lot of agreement on your assertion from hard-nosed scientists,
especially the idea that you must believe in something divine to do
science.
Finally, the "order" in the Universe is a man-made conception as you've
rightly pointed out before. Yet most scientists take it for granted that an
order exists in the universe--independent of our conceptions--that
mathematics and measurement can uncover.
So I question whether most scientists would "welcome" your
statement. It would be interesting to test it with a poll. Or, have I
misread your statement and that what you meant was laymen and
technicians would welcome your statement?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
