Re: Science, Religion, Philosophy.
From: Kenneth Doyle (nobody_at_notmail.com)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: Jeff Relf: "You are in violation of RFC 1036."
- Previous message: Dave Jarvis: "Re: Layman's Guide to Quantum Entanglement"
- In reply to: John Wilkins: "Re: Science, Religion, Philosophy."
- Next in thread: John Wilkins: "Re: Science, Religion, Philosophy."
- Reply: John Wilkins: "Re: Science, Religion, Philosophy."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 03:30:36 GMT
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1ghqnjq.vmc0kquzhihgN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au:
> Kenneth Doyle <nobody@notmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This discussion might possibly benefit from the observation that the
>> scientific method is a product of philosophy, not of science.
>
> Or perhaps that it evolved from the ways in which science worked best,
> once freed from the constraints of apriorism - in other words, not so
> much from the positive contributions of philosophy, as the removal of
> the negative ones.
I suppose that's possible, but I don't think Popper or Kuhn (for example)
would agree.
-- CodeCutter - good, fast and cheap; pick two.
- Next message: Jeff Relf: "You are in violation of RFC 1036."
- Previous message: Dave Jarvis: "Re: Layman's Guide to Quantum Entanglement"
- In reply to: John Wilkins: "Re: Science, Religion, Philosophy."
- Next in thread: John Wilkins: "Re: Science, Religion, Philosophy."
- Reply: John Wilkins: "Re: Science, Religion, Philosophy."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|