Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- From: "Pompous Git" <jpsturm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:32:08 -0400 (EDT)
Wirt Atmar wrote: "if all of the philosophers of science had never existed,
nothing of any consequence in
the history of evolutionary biology, or any other science for that matter,
would have changed a whit."
Nice thought experiment. Let's start with Aristotle. No codified system of
rational thought to become synthesised with Christianity that needed a new
physics to fix its ailing calendar to give rise to all the modern sciences.
And in such a world The Git's brain would no longer have to hurt from
thinking difficult thoughts. Great idea! When can we arrange it? :-)
Jonathan Sturm
The world's most Pompous Git according to Google
<snip>
.
- References:
- Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- From: Robert Karl Stonjek
- Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- From: John S. Wilkins
- Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- From: Wirt Atmar
- Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- Prev by Date: Re: Genetic Memory?
- Next by Date: RE: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
- Previous by thread: Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- Next by thread: Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading