"what takes precedence, experience of life or science? I would say that the role of science is to try to explain life's experiences. One puts together an edifice of science which explains certain regularities in experience. It then seems that for some people, science, which was invented to explain experience, becomes autonomous in its own right...." (russel stannard)
Just a disjointed thought.......
science is a tool of man to learn more about his environment and himself. Man is who uses the tool, so why exclude him from discussion of his studies?
Science would not be there without curiosity, for why try to learn things about yourself and your environment if you are apathetic to what their characteristics are? Especially since man (with the help of his peers) dictates the direction of scientific study. Values are certainly in existance within man...and they affect the boundaries of men's actions......can this not be studied also? (faith is also employed, as i mention later)
Eg. Fred Hugenstein the III is curious about biological differences between infants and adults(humans). He questions about whether or not to try experimenting with the pain tolerence of his subjects....his decision on whether to perform the study becomes dependant on what?___________
And what does that illustrate about the function and direction of science?
Ok, total limb here.......
What would happen if you were to view scientific study through the 'eye' of Nash's equilibrium?
To exclude consideration of the social impact becomes counterproductive to the success of overall understanding of the group, since the advancement of science rests on foundations laid by previous scientists, their values, and their goals....
And since you will never duplicate, in your life time, all scientific discoveries ever made....you need to have faith in the authenticity of findings of previous studies that affect yours
can faith be studied too?
paradox city
*******sigh**********
------------------
*******sleeper********
™ Version 4.2
