<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<small><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Mark P. Line wrote:<br>
</font></small>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid1655.69.91.14.68.1153945748.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com">
<pre wrap=""><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Peter Kühnlein wrote:
</font></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Mark P. Line wrote:
</font></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I would have to disagree. I think science is defined not by a search for
truth but by use of scientific method.
</font></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Mark, may I ask, then, what constitutes the "scientific method"?
Isn't it the search for true propositions about nature?
</font></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!----><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">
First, I should note that I didn't say "the scientific method". [...]</font></pre>
</blockquote>
<small><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">That's right, Mark,
you didn't; but you used the singular form "method". And you
characterized the activity common to all sciences thus:</font></small><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid1655.69.91.14.68.1153945748.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com">
<pre wrap=""><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">"Objectively repeatable construction of
useful models" is about as close as I can come to a common denominator.
</font></pre>
</blockquote>
<small><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">But your common
denominator doesn't seem to exclude your favorite counter-examples like
religion; given some purpose these might be considered useful models of
nature as well. Plus your emphasis on usefulness seems to exclude
"pure" fundamental research (where it's sometimes hard to see any use
and scientists are proud of that) and blur the distinction between
applied sciences and engineering.</font></small><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid1655.69.91.14.68.1153945748.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com">
<pre wrap=""><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I think the search for true propositions about nature is part of
philosophy, including theology, but not science.</font></pre>
</blockquote>
<small><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">At least for
philosophy, this seems to be a strange claim: philosophy should rather
be characterized as the search for what *might* be true (and, hence,
what is necessarily false) as opposed to what *is* true - that's the
difference between philosophy and sciences.</font></small><br>
<br>
<small><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I'd like to continue
this discussion, if you do, Mark; there is more to say about the parts
of your previous mail I omitted. However, Corpora list seems the wrong
place for it and I feel we're spamming people. (It's maybe not useful
for them.) Let's invite everybody interested in the search for the
truth regarding usefulness for a "private" mailing list we might found
ad-hoc. So, everyone interested: feel free to send me an email
"offline".<br>
<br>
-Peter</font></small><br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.peter-kuehnlein.net">http://www.peter-kuehnlein.net</a>
"There is dignity in personal appearance. There is dignity in a calm aspect. There is dignity in a paucity of words. There is dignity in flawlessness of manners. There is dignity in solemn behavior. And there is dignity in deep insight and a clear perspective."
(Hagakure)</pre>
</body>
</html>