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. ]