Some corrections:
At around 23/6/06 11:52 am, ravi wrote:
>
> So you believe:
>
> a) Bush is antagonistic toward science that doesn't fit his goal
> b) We shouldn't emulate that
>
> What follows to me is that (b) entails us to:
>
> c) We should not be antagonistic toward science that doesn't fit our goal
>
> i.e., stated loosely earlier by me: we should embrace science even if
> that doesn't fit our goal.
>
That last bit should read "we should embrace even that science which
does not fit our goal".
> I am saying that I have no idea what "scientific ideals" are, for
> instance, in comparison to "enlightenment ideals", or "Gandhian ideals",
> etc.
I do know that which many refer to as the "scientific approach", the
"scientific method", etc, etc, and that once defined that way is often
used by the proponents (scientists and those who feed off of them) to
promote the practice/field/activity. However, I do not know how this
"scientific <xyz>" is any different from various other "human <xyz>s".
Many members of this list research, study, teach economics, history,
literature, etc. I am sure not all of them are using a "scientific
ideal" or "scientific approach". However, they are hard-working,
open-minded, etc, etc.
>From a different angle, as I mentioned in another response, my 18-month
old seems very keen to verify his theories empirically. He is often open
to correction. etc. etc.
There is another sense in which "scientific method" is used. This gets
into such issues as "reductionism", "context of justification", etc. I
mention it to note that I am not unaware of this and will gladly expand
my argument to include that description, when relevant.
--ravi
--
Support something better than yourself: ;-)
PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
