But accepting that distinction, which I agree is reasonable, doesn't to my mind imply that morality, meaning, and ethics are beyond the ability of science to inform.
To inform, yes--in the sense of "help." One might use an analogy from some literary study. Suppose we discovered some ancient poem. We could use scientific methods to perhaps determine the date and origin of the work, by analyzing the ink and paper. The date and origin helps us to understand the work, but there would be a great deal of interpretation--non-scientific in nature--that would have to be done in order to write up our study on the poem. The overall judgment about the poem would by helped by science but would not be scientific, in the same way that our overall moral judgment about some matter might be helped by science but would not be scientific.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 09-12-2005 07:42 PM
Now, I come to a decision about which conclusion I think is most likely, and that process of coming to my conclusion doesn't proceed via scientific methodology but according to my view of how well each article supported their points.
How well each article supported their points is a non-scientific analysis. Therefore, your conclusion is non-scientific.
You have learned about cells, but your learning, though the subject matter is scientific, is in itself a non-scientific procedure.