raghu wrote: > I think Ravi was objecting to the tyranny of science. Science in the > 21'st century has become what the Bible was in the middle ages
No. For _some_ it has been thus for almost two centuries, but NEVER for everyone, including never for all scientists. Moreover, as I said in my post, just what "science" includes _and_ what its distinguishing features are have always been controversial - going back to the time when it was not called science but was called "natural philosophy." (Newton didn't know he was a scientist.) That's why I charged ravi with causing intellectual confusion, because he used a complex term with a large history as though it were as simple a word as cup or tooth. As a result it is really impossible to discuss what he is saying - because he isn't saying anything but merely using a magical word to express a bellyache. - the > ultimate arbiter of every important question. Who on this list uses it that way? Did Gould ever use it in that way? Did Einstein? Did Darwin for that matter? These are rheotrical questions - the answer to each of them is plainly NO! If ravi wants to argue with the ad executives who make tv ads beginning "Science Tells Us," fine - but he shouldmake it clear that he is writing off topic, that what he says is irrelevant to what anyone on this list says. Carrol _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
