>There is a real need for for inspired and precise language with which
to describe
>intuitive events within natural systems. As I've stated before, the
dichotomy
>doesn't really exist and I think I'd be wrong to pursue this thread any
farther at
>this time. At this point in time, what "we" need is balanced, whole
people; more
>Athenians not Spartans or Wall Street magicians. Anybody looking for a
universal
>common denominator had better have a well defined (& intuitive) grasp
of the
>whole. Then, the results of an analysis can be checked back against
itself and
>with the comments of others. Nuff said.
And I couldn't agree more. If we are (and some of us are) looking for a
definition of the scientific method, I think the last sentence of above
will do. As far as the history and philosophy of science go, which are
what underlie this discussion, I think there is room for some
clarification. The pure dichotomy doesn't exist, but science as
historical force does have real connections to and roots in positivism
(which we might call reductionist)and so in a world view which
privileges the quantifiable aspects of reality. Science, I think, is
moving past that, as noted above, towards recognition of intuition,
whole systems, relative objectivity...and the need to admit that human
beings live in a world of qualities as well as numbers. The fact
remains, however, that science has alot to live down; we can't pretend
that the uses and abuses of technology don't have anything to do with
science and the scientific world view.
For anyone interested in the phil. of science vis a vis these issues,
you might want to look into writings on phenomenology: Husserl,
Merleau-Ponty, Alfred North Whitehead.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".