biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (02/09/88)
In article <22271@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Ram-Ashwin@cs.yale.edu (Ashwin Ram) writes: >You bring up several interesting and oft-debated philosophical points. I >suggest you read some philosophy of science, since those guys have beaten >this subject to death. Some obvious objections (I don't necessarily hold >these views, but I'd like to present them): (Empirical verifiability vs. objective verifiability, proof vs. corroboration, interpretation of experimental results, status of scientifical theories, deduction vs. induction vs. abduction, proof vs. explanation, definition of science, belief systems, religion vs. science, Kuhn's "scientific method") >And so on... >I agree with you that religion does NOT fall under our intuition as to what >a 'science' should be, but I just wanted to make the perhaps-obvious point >that the argument isn't as simple as you and I would like it to be. >To go into a philosophical discussion about these issues would take too >long and probably doesn't belong in s.c.i. anyway. If you're really inter- >ested, you might try talk.philosophy where you might get the true answers >from some real philosophers :-). Wrong! This sort of discussion belongs in sci.philosophy.tech, a(n until now) high-quality group where one can be sure to get serious comments on these topics. -- Biep. (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax) Relative ethics amounts to saying that the only mis- take Hitler made was one of timing: at the time the majority unfortunately didn't subscribe his ideas.