Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!sun!amdahl!gam
From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame
Subject: Re: Quo Vadis Science?
Message-ID: <744@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 13:53:55 EST
Article-I.D.: amdahl.744
Posted: Thu Dec 13 13:53:55 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Dec-84 06:38:04 EST
References: <224@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 28
Xref: watmath net.religion:5100 net.flame:7224

I resent my name being corrupted for the sake of humor.

Furthermore, I don't know how you got the idea that I feel that
science is the be all and end all of human knowledge and experience.
This is exactly the assumption I have been opposing in net.religion.

(*ahem* back to discussing the issue)

> = Ken Arndt (quoting someone else)

> "It is important to realize that science does not make assertions about 
> ultimate questions - about the riddles of existence, or about man's task
> in this world.  This has often been well understood.  But some great
> scientists, and many lesser ones, have misunderstood the situation.  The
> fact that science cannot make any pronouncements about ethical principles
> has been misinterpreted as indicating that there are not such principles, 
> while in fact the search for truth presupposes ethics."
>                - Karl Popper,( the rock star??) , DIALECTICA 32:342

This makes sense to me, but why does "the search for truth [presuppose]
ethics"?

PS -- I usually like your sense of humor, Ken, whether or not I agree
      with you.  But mocking my name I do not find funny.
-- 
Gordon A. Moffett		...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam

37 22'50" N / 121 59'12" W	[ This is just me talking. ]