Science and Myth

E's are driven by the questions of "how", "what" and "when". Moreover, they are concerned with how different whats interact. E's are, on the other hand, totally unconcerned with "why" beyond the simple form of "why did X happen (a more how-related question)". They don't care about "purpose". This is your fundamental error.By contrast, C's proclaim they know "why", are unconcerned with "how" since they already know that as well, and couldn't care less what and when if it disagrees with their presuppositions. Correct, as far as it goes. However, data is used as a basis to either formulate or test explanations (hows and whats) for observations. If data conflicts with the explanation, then the explanation might need to be revised. If it's in accord, then that lends support to the explanation - but doesn't "prove" it, since proof assumes some kind of unbreakable Truth. Almost. Science never makes pronouncements like "it does not exist". However, if whatever "it" is cannot be measured, inferred, etc, then it can't be used as part of an explanation. In other words, science depends on an empirical approach that can be tested. That's all. That's false. The scientific method doesn't rule out love, or any other purely subjective "feeling". It merely (in the case of love, for instance) says it is not measureable since the sample population is n=1. There is no empirical way of testing "love" beyond a certain set of physiological responses - which differ between different people - because every single individual has a different response and different feelings. Science tries to discern patterns and regularities. N=1 means there can be no pattern. You can't get a line from a single point. Yep. You say that like this is a good thing. How often have you seen a new food source or new technology or new medicine created by metaphysics. C's are quite free to ignore physical evidence. But I think they would die out fairly quickly if they tried to use God as an explanation for physical processes. Okay. Why can't we? Give me some concrete examples where science can make use of supernatural processes, phenomena, entities or explanations and actually accomplish something.

That's interesting. I didn't realize you were a Kabbalist. For some reason I thought you were Christian. My mistake. Apologies.I'm not a rabbinical scholar, so won't dispute the quotes you provided, except to point out that the authorship of the Zohar is - to say the least - problematic. Most things I've read indicate that it was compiled by the Spaniard Moses de Leon in the 13th Century. However, I'm aware this is disputed (i.e., an oral tradition ultimately compiled by de Leon). In any event, how does Jewish mysticism - primarily a commentary on the five books of the Pentateuch - provide any rationale or methodology for understanding the natural world? The whole thing is concerned with the so-called tree of life, mystical spheres, religious allegory, etc etc etc.When I asked for an example, I meant something along the lines of using the methodology to solve concrete, real world problems. For example, show how the Kabbalah and/or the Zohar can be used to understand metapopulation extinction - and how to prevent it. Or show how the Zohar predicts the geological column. Or show how kabbalah can be used to explain the adaptation of eyed creatures to life in endless darkness (such as blind cave fish). Or the evolution of cholera virulence. Or the life cycle of trypanosome parasites, etc.(edited to add link to the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on the authorship of the Zohar. It appears this edition calls the Zohar a forgery - if not in so many words ("pseudepigraphic" = written under a false name). I have no idea, actually. Zohar. )(edited a second time because my idiot friend who gave me the link insisted I had misspelled "pseud-O-epigraphic" - an error I have now fixed in the text. Some people... )[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-15-2003][This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-15-2003]

No problem, take your time. I'm not going anywhere...