Science is the most objective of what? The best we can say is that science is the most objective discipline at developing models that match predicted observables. This doesn't tell us anything about the nature of those models. In order for those models to have any significant meaning they must be enriched by philosophy.

Harwey, what do you mean by "nature" here?

Say, what is the nature of electric current? Of magnetism? Or of such "act of god" as hurricane? Or of tornado?

Tell us how science "does not tell us anything" about nature of tornado or magnetism?

(Side note: does religion tells us about nature of hurricane? "Act of God", huh?

Are you serious denying usefullness of science in explaining nature of millions phenomena around us?
This is extremely naive or immature point of view.

• That's not what I'm saying - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 21:23 UTC
  • Alex, read the writing on the wall - aurino - January 24, 2002 - 21:33 UTC
    • Prove? - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 21:41 UTC
      • We must infer??? - doctordick - January 25, 2002 - 14:03 UTC
        • We must define??? - aurino - January 25, 2002 - 14:56 UTC
        • That's right - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 15:00 UTC
  • Is anything wrong with Newton's laws? - alexander - January 25, 2002 - 23:24 UTC
    • Doesn't work in QM - harvey1 - January 26, 2002 - 01:54 UTC
      • Correction. - alexander - January 27, 2002 - 00:26 UTC
    • Some issues regarding the correction - harvey1 - January 27, 2002 - 02:03 UTC
      • Correction - harvey1 - January 27, 2002 - 02:04 UTC