At 5:51 AM -0800 3/11/00, Jeffrey Nagelbush wrote:
>I guess I would like to add my perspective to this discussion. I believe
>that science, whatever else it is, is a way (or ways) to understand the
>natural world. If humananity is "simply" a part of the natural world then
>science is all we need to understand ourselves and "alternate ways of
>knowing" will not be necessary.
Part of the problem is the use of terms like 'understanding' and 'knowing'.
These terms are vague, and can be applied to anything.
Science is not defined this way -- science is a particular method of making
specific predictions based on and verified by controlled observations.
Scientific theories are interrelated sets of relationships which enable use
to make predictions about a wider range of phenomena.
Within the assumptions of science, there is no such thing as an 'unnatural
world' -- only lawful phenomena which have not yet been sufficiently
studied.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
