Hi
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Louis_Schmier wrote:
> Jim, if you reread what I wrote, you'll see that I never said the mass of
> scientific knowledge is static. I merely addressed the basic tenets of
> science within the context of Rick's message. As for tearing down
> science, you still don't know on which side, if any, I fall.
I understood what you wrote, Louis. My point was that only be
equating science with its methods could one even begin to
conclude that science was even remotely static. Note that the
examples of change in religion given by others (e.g., Linda)
concern propositions about the world, not general methods
(whatever form those might take in religion). So different
scopes were being applied to science and religion, making the
comparison unfair and inaccurate.
With respect to the "tearing down science" part, I sincerely
doubt that many of the participants in this debate believe that
is what they are doing. But our actions do not always have the
consequences that we intend or would like. For example, I am
sure that my commentary will lead some people to have even
greater antipathy to science than before, not exactly what I
would like to happen. Likewise, people who attack science either
directly (e.g., holding science responsible for the ills of the
world) or indirectly (e.g., asserting that other ways of knowing
are just as valid and legitimate as science) may be contributing
unintentionally to an undermining of science, especially in a
time like ours when, I believe, there are many anti-science
forces operating in society and the academy.
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9313
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L02A
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
