From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 02:44:46 GMT
Magnus,
Not that this has anything to do with the general intent of your post, but I
take issue with:
>
> Natural sciences are more static, i.e. lower on the static ladder.
> Natural sciences explains the first level. So in that way, it's still a
> more basic science than other.
>
> Biology, zoology, etc. explains the second, biological level and so on.
>
Biology and zoology *as currently practiced* are not explaining the
biological level. They can only describe the first level processes that
occur in second level entities. To claim otherwise is to espouse
reductionism.
I don't know what a true second-level science would be (I have hopes of
Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenesis, but recognize that it is still largely
speculative). Whatever it is, it will be called vitalism by scientism types
(Here's a challenge: a word for 'one who believes in scientism'. Can't be
'scientist'. Scientismist? Ugh.)
- Scott
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 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 02:45:10 GMT