re: definition

From: Susan Brassfield (susanb@telepath.com)
Date: Sat Jun 10 2000 - 17:12:40 EDT

  • Next message: Stephen E. Jones: "Re: macroevolution or macromutations? (was ID)"

    Bill Wald:

    >I stole this from science-week. (scienceweek,com)
    >
    > >>>>
    >Theoretical particle physics and theoretical cosmology appear to
    >lie at two extremes of human thought, but in fact they have much
    >that binds them together. In both cases, the work of the
    >theoretician is essentially to pose the same question: What set
    >of assumptions concerning the real world, subject to appropriate
    >quantitative analytic methods, will yield quantitative
    >predictions in accord with observations of the real world?
    ><<<<
    >
    >
    >Does not this question seperate science from philosophy?

    yes, in that science must necessarily reference back to (directly or
    indirectly) observable nature. I think philosophy is more like mathematics,
    in that it *may* reference back to the natural world, but need not.

    Susan



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 10 2000 - 17:13:03 EDT