I'm definitely not on the side of the religious zealots.  I'm curious abo=
ut your clear distinctions, though.  There have been some great books tha=
t linked modern physics with ancient writings, and I tend see things that=
 way as well. =20

Do I think that science and religion will ever come together? No way! =20

But I think modern science, especially quantum physics, and the knowledge=
 from thousands of years ago do share much from the perspective of scienc=
e.

Of course, one cannot find it with "literal" interpretations of sacred wo=
rks. =20

Have you given such things much thought, Russell?

I'm remembering books I've read like The Tao of Physics, and=20
Hyperspace by Michio Kaku and perhaps The Dancing Wu Li Masters
and G=F6del, Escher, Bach, as well as many by one of my favorites=20
Joseph Campbell.  (Also Karl Jung, but I find admit he is=20
difficult to read for me.)


-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf =
Of Russell McMahon


More anon maybe.
Quick comment.

I say there is a hard and fast dividing line [:-)].
Popper agrees (or, rather, of course, I agree with him).
Science is where you can model/predict/test and repeat ad infinitum=20
(or nauseum) and refine your model.
Everything else is where you can't. I'm calling that "religion" - it=20
of course doesn't HAVE to be religion BUT, when people find that their=20
favourite endeavour falls outside the balliwick of Popper's hard=20
science they often start to very stridently  demand that their=20
favourite past-time (or life's work) is-too! real science and if you=20
don't agree they will take their toys and go play somewhere else, AND=20
take away your funding grants, AND anyway your religious so what would=20
you know anyway? (and your mother wears army boots).

Evolution falls outside Popper's boundaries and can not be handled by=20
Science as he knows it. It can of course be handled by religion of=20
whatever shape and form one wishes to create to defend it and explain=20
it. Puddles of primordial goop or young earth divine Creator are=20
equally good religious views as a starting point. One or the other is=20
more likely to correspond to what really happened, but that's not the=20
point.

The point I started on was that Melott, in seeking to defend children=20
against religion, made a superb statement about science, but had=20
already when he made it fallen into the arms of an equally ardent and=20
un-Popperish religion which thinks itself to be "real-science".=20
Whether it's right or not about what it believes is not the issue.

If you reject the scientific method and Popper's postulates you are=20
awash on a sea of don't-know, and anything you wish to claim may be=20
justified by adjusting the rules. Popper followers can NEVER say "we=20
know", only that their model is getting better over time and they=20
don't THINK that it's going to break any time soon.



--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist