The issue for me is those who use *science* to explain phenomena--and
according to your statement, that is an inappropriate application.
That is what we who are against the use of toxic pesticides are saying. We
affirm that we do not need *more research* because the *body of knowledge*
you speak of already contains sufficient *facts* to tell us toxic man-made
chemical pesticides have effects not originally known, not originally
tested for, and not originally considered by the agencies that deem them
safe for use around humans.
Whether the facts don't fit the theory or the theory doesn't fit the facts,
it's the theory which must be changed.
>It is also good at describing systems and their functions.
> Scientists observed long ago that systems have attributes and functions that
>are greater than the sum of their parts.
These two statements contradict eath other. And support my point that
*science* isn't so good at describing systems because systems have more
going on that the sum of their discrete parts would allow us to measure.
>The knowledge base (science) represented by what we call homeopathy has
>validity in contexts just as other knowledges have in their own contexts when
>that knowledge is verifiable.
What is verifiable and how it was verified is the discussion. For some,
having people find relief for over one hundred years is verification that a
system such as homeopathy works. Or people finding relief for over two
thousand years is verification that a system such as acupuncture works.
This way of measuring is different than the *science* currently practiced
in the U.S. but is no less valid for many of us. Some who say it is not
*science* but anecdotal use that shield to make the facts fit the theory.
I say the theory, that the scientific method is the only means of
validation, is flawed.
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command