Hi Jonathan:
> I still maintain that "objectivity" in science is not philosophical, but
> empirical - you "prove" a result to be objective by proving it to be
> reproducible (for different observers).
No need to remind you but I will anyway that Darwin's theory is not
reproducible and thus not provable by science's own standard of proof.
> Squonk, I agree with your take on the creationism issue, and believe the
> theory of evolution is grossly misrepresented by its opponents. My own
> position is that evolution is a direct CONSEQUENCE of everything we "know"
> about the natural sciences; thus you cannot deny evolution without chucking
> out large chunks of physics and chemistry.
It's what science doesn't know (like the origin of values, for example)
that keeps the evolutionary debate going.
Incidentally, how would you characterize Pirsig's theory of evolution as
described in LILA? Would you say it's on a par with the bible-thumpers?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:27 BST