I've always enjoyed your output even if it tends to outsnark my own more often than not.
In another thread about matters anthropological and biological, you charge science with relying too heavily on material data. What I'm wondering is, given that science (and I'm talking about "hard" science here) concerns itself with the different aspects of the physical world (as that world is perceived by creatures such as we), what basis other than material data could serve as the springboard for scientific inquiries into Rerum Natura?
I'm genuinely curious, here. Anthropologist Stephen Jay Gould, when discussing the respective purviews of science and religion, claimed that no conflict between those two realms could arise as they each consisted of a "non-overlapping magisterium" in the face of the other.
Are you saying, like Einstein, that "science without religion is lame"?
I find this subject endlessly fascinating. In case you can't tell.
In another thread about matters anthropological and biological, you charge science with relying too heavily on material data. What I'm wondering is, given that science (and I'm talking about "hard" science here) concerns itself with the different aspects of the physical world (as that world is perceived by creatures such as we), what basis other than material data could serve as the springboard for scientific inquiries into Rerum Natura?
I'm genuinely curious, here. Anthropologist Stephen Jay Gould, when discussing the respective purviews of science and religion, claimed that no conflict between those two realms could arise as they each consisted of a "non-overlapping magisterium" in the face of the other.
Are you saying, like Einstein, that "science without religion is lame"?
I find this subject endlessly fascinating. In case you can't tell.