gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (01/04/85)
Ken, it is a wonderful thing that Sir whats-his-name knows a lot
about brains and such.
But you seem to be arguing that BECAUSE he knows a lot about brains
we should accept his philosophical points of view as well. I don't.
Furthermore, I am not far off from agreement with you (yes, I see
what you mean now about science being religious at a fundamental
level), and I feel that demonstrating the Religion of Science
(or the Religion of Reason, as I'd prefer to tackle it) should not
require the introduction of weighty authorities, except perhaps
to state the facts (oops, sorry) in a manner more eloquently than your
self might have done.
For example, why don't you just argue it from the rather obvious
point of view that:
science makes a priori assumptions about the way
the world (the universe?) works and proceeds
to examine the universe from these assumptions
from there.
A very simple example is:
The universe is a knowable thing.
Isn't this an unproven assertion from which all science springs?
A very nice assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. A belief,
a confidence (but not even a theory!).
I am not impressed by authorities unless what they are saying makes
sense to me. (I exclude my own statements from this requirement,
of course....).
I'd much rather discuss some of these issues by mail but I can't
seem to find your net address.
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
"Everything you know is wrong"