Louis_Schmier wrote:
> Jeff, let me give you my first take on this interesting question of faith
> vs. proof. It may be a disguised way of saying religion vs. science
As others have pointed out, "proof" isn't part of science.
> Science has a power and authority to deal with quiestions of
> "how." But, there are other questions. If nothing else, there is the
> annoying teleological questions of the ultimate "Why."
I've never quite understood this distinction. *Why* can't Johnny read? Is that
another way of saying "*How* do different people read?" Maybe that example is
too skill-based. *Why* is Sammy depressed? Does that mean, "*How* do we
prevent and treat depression?" Maybe both of these examples are too narrow.
After all, the question was about the *ultimate* "Why?" *Why* are we here? (A
question that I heard Paul MacLean, Chief of the NIMH Laboratory of Brain
Evolution and Behavior, ask a small group of faculty and students at Grinnell
College about 17 years ago.) Does that mean, "*How*" did natural processes
result in the current structure of the universe and its life forms? *Why* are
there natural processes? (What other kind would you like?)
I am probably oversimplifying these questions, but perhaps scientific progress
represents a move from asking "Why?" to asking "How?" (Bill Cosby's, "Why is
there air?" just came back to me.)
*****************************************************************
* Mike Scoles * [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Department of Psychology * voice: (501) 450-5418 *
* University of Central Arkansas * fax: (501) 450-5424 *
* Conway, AR 72035-0001 * *
********* http://www.coe.uca.edu/psych/scoles/index.html ********
