Why is "post-scientific" a better characterization than "unscientific" of the sentence "our understanding of the physical world is complete in all important respects." ?
To my mind the proposition "our understanding of the physical world is complete in all important respects" is absurd, Not just "unscientific" but counter-scientific. It doesn't seem to be consistent to any idea I have of "religion", either. Drake (posting from another account) From: Terry Bristol .... 'Post-scientific' is a better characterization than unscientific - methinks. What Peirce et al are after is a More General Theory that can account for the inherently limited success of various material or mechanical theories as special cases. T ================================= On Aug 16, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: Steven, List, ...... While I concur that Peirce would have certainly agreed that the position that "our understanding of the physical world is complete in all important respects" is unscientific, ... .. Gary --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
