Re: science as a complement of cognitions is not necessarily science

From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Fri Dec 20 2002 - 11:44:00 EST

  • Next message: RFaussette@aol.com: "Re: Does the Bible teach a flat earth?"

    Yeh, and it's also a process, an active methodical exploration of the
    behaviors and underlying principles (dare I say Logos?) of the creation
    of which we are a part. JimA

    RFaussette@aol.com wrote:

    >In a message dated 12/20/02 3:25:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
    >stromme@mi.uib.no writes:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> Science is . . . a complement of cognitions, having, in point of form, the
    >> character of logical perfection, and in point of matter, the character of
    >> real truth. --Sir W.
    >> Hamilton.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Yes, precisely, and real truth does not change. Your complement of cognitions
    >may change, but then according to this definition, if your complement of
    >cognitions do not, in point of matter, have the character of real truth, they
    >are not science. Alchemy was thought to be science. The complement of
    >cognitions did not reflect real truth.
    >
    >rich
    >
    >
    >
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Dec 20 2002 - 22:33:33 EST