Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (26154)	9/7/2001 10:16:24 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You are quite right, the business of science is to amass data about the natural world and put it in order, with the hope of developing theories about apparent observed relationships that rely on natural causes. The one objection is that although there should be respect for the data and the apparent relationships, it is possible that the purely naturalistic account leaves something to be desired. Since science defines itself according to its naturalistic presuppositions, whatever competing account there may be must be philosophical or theological, not scientific. That does not mean that the competing accounts cannot be valid, however, as long as they do not falsify the phenomena to be explained........

To: Lane3 who wrote (26154)	9/7/2001 11:53:11 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Religionists who insist on projecting a competing version of science will not prosper. Hmmm. I don't see people throwing money at scientists on TV the way they throw it at Jimmy Bakker, Oral Roberts, et. al. Here in Seattle the UW is scrambling for money to build a new science building while huge mega-churches of evangelists who deny evolution and preach creationism seem to have no problem raising all the money they need. Seems that some people who project a competing version of science are indeed prospering mightily.