That's second rate American University to you, fella. <vbg> Seriously, we have to be careful about what we ascribe to science. Much of physical science makes predictions about nature using equations; they predict numbers and then they measure numbers. When we start interpreting those equations with prose, we rarely make any further experimental checks. It is possible to wander off the rigor of the mathematics and start saying things that really aren't part of the equations. My point is that we should be careful not to point to science to justify philosophical extrapolations. Philosophy is itself a serious discipline and should be done using its own tools.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/29/2006 2:31:42 PM >>> On 3/29/06, Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What he said. The natural sciences concern themselves with things that > can be observed or theories that can be verified empirically. The > extent to which those things overlap with REALITY is a question for > philosophy/religion/psychology. After all, reality as we know it what > our brains create; what I see is the picture the brain makes from those > little impulses coming from my eyes. I assume that it has some relation > to what's really out there or I'd be dead by now. Other than that, who > knows? The guy's a prof at some second rate American college and he thinks he can tell us about science? Yeah, right! <g> cheers, frank ps: seriously, what do you teach again, Steve? I know it's a science of some sort... -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
