After trying to stay out of this...
At 03:50 PM 6/15/99 -0500, Jim wrote:
>Scientific knowledge encompasses far more than methods and to try
>to claim that the sum total of scientific knowledge is unchanged
>from even a decade ago, let alone centuries ago, strikes me as
>bizarre. Claims or evasions like this just strengthen my sense
So, science is defined by the content (i.e., knowledge it encompasses, the
facts and figures, etc) not by the process?
I feel like some are simply stating that even though some of the basic
tenets of religion have not changed, the interpretations have. Much as the
scientific method has not changed over time, but the interpretation of our
observations of nature have changed as we've observed more. Just as
religious interpretations have changed over time.
Just my 2 cents... and I'm too poor this summer to contribute any more than
that...
- Marc
