Since when does: Sagan, Gould, and the rest speak OFFICIALLY for science?
Even Stephen Hawking dodged the issue by using OCCAM's RAZOR in Cosmology
Occam was a philosopher, theolgian, and Fransican Friar. He is the author
of Natural Philosophy (as we know it today).
Before the turn of the century - Guess what physics was called? Yep... it
was and is natural philosophy. But unlike the radicals listed above, it's
not an automatic discount of what lies beyond.
The real problem for science comes from it's own epistemology since. That
is the issue of "repeatability". And until that is passed WHATEVER THEORY
or CLAIM is: Science discounts systematically. Again... Epistemology will
not make your case (if anything... it shoots it down for good).
Unified Knowledge is like Utopia... Give it up!
Best Wishes,
William - N6RKY
Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>
> Dear William,
>
> Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the origin, nature,
> methods, and limits of human knowledge. Science does discount the
> supernatural. Scientists may not but science certainly does. The point I
> was making is that in the process of devising different disciplines in order
> for the human mind to learn, we ought not to annihilate any form of
> knowledge in the process of putting the whole thing together. That is all.
> For instance, scientists have no business making philosophical or
> theological pronouncements and think that they are talking science. Carl
> Sagan made a statement in Cosmos that the earth was a forgotten,
> insignificant planet. Insignificant to whom? Forgotten by whom?
>
> Take care,
>
> Moorad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A. Wetzel <n6rky@pacbell.net>
> To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
> Cc: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>;
> asa@udomo3.calvin.edu <asa@udomo3.calvin.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 4:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Phil Johnson on Focus on the Family
>
> >Dear Moorad:
> >
> >I knew we would eventually get to that topic! Epistemology is what I have
> >seen wielded by most Socratics (who deny evolution). And I aways respond:
> >"OCCAMS RAZOR". This is what science is all about. Looking for causes for
> >phenomena in the natural realm.
> >
> >It DOES not mean that science discounts the supernatural though. It is in
> >the extremist camps ONLY where the supernatural is altogether ruled out.
> >
> >I will read the book you had suggested, but I remind you that science has
> >it's own epistemology. Logic alone does not prove a case. And consilience
> >and/or Unity of Knowledge (like Utopia) is an unachievable ideal.
> >
> >Best Wishes,
> >William - N6RKY
> >
> >
> >Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear William,
> >>
> >> It so happens that I just began to read the book "Consilience: the unity
> of
> >> knowledge" by Edward O. Wilson. However, what I am talking about comes
> from
> >> a philosophy course I took while an undergraduate at the University of
> Rhode
> >> Island. My philosophy professor, William Oliver Martin, was the author
> of
> >> the book we used, "The Order and Integration of Knowledge." The best
> course
> >> I ever took! It is hard reading but it is a must for all interested in
> >> epistemology.
> >>
> >> I am quitting for the day, finals to grade,
> >>
> >> Moorad
-- William A. Wetzel icq-uin# 13983514 http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky http://www.qsl.net/n6rky mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net mailto:n6rky@qsl.net