gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (05/10/85)
-- > Science without the 'why' is NOT SCIENCE. > > It's fiddling around. It's noise. It's killing time till it's time > to die. > > Rosen and I together! Ha. I love it. Truth is, I actually think I'd > like the guy if I ever met him, what with us both being from NJ and > all. > > Science DOES start with a 'why'. Even if it's only 'Why bother?'. OK, fair is fair--if I can get you mixed up with Rosen, you can get me mixed up with him, too. Science is *not* a credo for living the virtuous life. It's just a way to look at things which will get you from here to there. To the moon, not to heaven. To believe that the scientific method will get you anywhere demands that you believe that there is an objective reality--out there--which one can aspire to irrespective of one's state of grace. This is the essence of humanism, in its finest, Renaissance sense, and has been embraced by many who have professed great faith in God. No contradiction at all--the beliefs are quite orthogonal. > Science rests on certain 'why' assumptions that are not what YOU call > 'science'. Creationism is not 'science' to you because you have > chosen different 'whys' to start with, that's all. > > I don't find the 'how' stuff boring. Only when it has no 'why' to give > it meaning! Then it becomes EXTREEMLY boring. Rather be surfing, you > know. Creationism is not science because it invokes *tautologically* an unnatural, unfathomable force. Creationism may be fulfilling, it may be fun, it may even be *true*--but it can never be a scientific paradigm. Cry "foul" if you want, but science is nothing if it is not strict. As for science's (as opposed to scientists') alleged 'why' assumptions-- tell me about these, Ken. Remember, we're talking about the scientific method, not atheists in foxholes. Science claims only to be useful, not necessarily satisfying. But it's a powerful tool, you know, right up there with the alphabet and the microwave oven. > But you little buddy. You're not far from the Kingdom, I feel. > Just stay out of the clutches of the Mormons and JW's and such. > Until I get a chance to beat you over the head. Not to worry, Ken. Your ilk has been beating my ilk over the head (in your more humane moments) for centuries. Go live your seemingly virtuous life because some piece of literature says it is, and get your pie in the sky when you die. It behoves some of us to work on the here and now, if only because we find it intrinsically more interesting. You know what makes me laugh, Ken? The virtuous fundamentalist and the virtuous Mormon are behaviorally indistinguishable. So you're just like that egregious Star Trek episode with the guy who was black on his right side going at it tooth and nail with the guy who was black on his left. You religious dogmatists have better lines, but they were better actors. > We're way past Galieo now. By the way, he was a Christian as you know > if you have read his private papers. Today we say, "Nevertheless, it > moves, I think, maybe, possibly, or not." Welcome to the Dark Ages, > Modern version. Life is lived on a bannana peel. And we sing about > it. > Keep chargin' > Ken Arndt Aha! Are you intimating that the troubles of our times are due to blind faith in science as panacea? It's true that some people, even some scientists, believe that science holds the answers to everything. But so what? Some people believe that the Bible holds the answers to everything. You can believe what you want. It's what you *DO* that you're accountable for. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 09 May 85 [20 Floreal An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***