Godfrey, "Physical and natural" automatically implies real. The unreal is neither physical nor natural.
Gautam On 3/29/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Science is defined to be: > > --- > science: > noun > The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic > study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world > through observation and experiment : the world of science and > technology. > - a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural > sciences. > - a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular > subject : the science of criminology. > - archaic knowledge of any kind. > > ORIGIN Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from > Latin scientia, from scire 'know.' > --- > > Note that this definition has no mention of the words "real" or > "reality" in it. Notions of reality are part of philosophy (typically > metaphysics and epistemology), not science. > > Godfrey > > On Mar 29, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Gautam Sarup wrote: > > I'd say that if the mystics want to change the definition of > > science they > > can't. Science is still (and always will be) the study of > > reality. The > > "study of non-reality" if such a thing is possible will always be > > mysticism. > > > > There is no logical need to morph one into the other. > > > > On 3/29/06, Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Science today studies much that isn't real. That's a 19th century > >> definition. > > >
