Don't take this personal, but I don't think you or Alex know enough about the philosophical and historical issues related to this issue. It is fine to offer philosophical arguments to support your position, but it is quite another thing to presuppose that those philosophical arguments should somehow be construed as elucidating scientific arguments.

I wonder where all this misconception of science and philosophy is coming from. Part of the blame, I think, is the popular scientific books by well-known personalities who often stray into philosophy without any passing mention. The general reader is perhaps under the conception that science is still being discussed (when only the philosophy of science or at times the philosophy of religion is the issue).

Oh well, I suppose I can only do so much to clear the air. I'm happy to discuss philosophy (which I don't designate as 'opinion'), but I won't discuss philosophy as if it is science since this is very misconstruing the subject matter.

Warm regards, Harv

• The importance of Science! - doctordick - April 18, 2001 - 15:43 UTC
  • re: philosophy of science - harvey1 - April 18, 2001 - 16:16 UTC
    • What is science and what is a philosophy. - alexander - April 18, 2001 - 20:27 UTC
      • Philosophy - harvey1 - April 18, 2001 - 20:34 UTC
• I was a philosophy wannabe who was put in his place. - johnpowell - April 19, 2001 - 21:25 UTC
  • What philosophy is today - harvey1 - April 20, 2001 - 17:56 UTC