Tom, Nick,
Tom, whether you've read Nick's "long mail" or not, I'm not sure you
understand his thesis ? Excuse my presumption.
(1) Nick is pretty well saying that Popperian "standard empiricism" is
part of the problem (in fact I even find myself defending other
aspects of Popper against Nick's arguments).
(2) When you say "True science is by its nature not 'neurotic' but
impartial to all save the objective of expanding knowledge of the
world." ... you seem to be wishing that's what it was (true science),
but missing the point that depite the Popperian line, in practice it
(actual science) is not, and nor should it be if it we're honest. It's
that repressed paradox that is the neurosis.
I think we'd agree true science "shouldn't" be neurotic. That's the point.
Perhaps I've missed your point.
Ian
On 6/15/07, Tom Milner-Gulland <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> My feeling is that there is such a chasm, approach-wise, between the almost
> religious enshrinement of scientific theories in academia and the practical
> science that is pursued by industry (and also by independently minded
> enthusiasts) that it cannot be said that both are true science. The
> Popperian approach sadly seems to support religious enshrinement of the very
> notion of theory, not true science. True science is by its nature not
> 'neurotic' but impartial to all save the objective of expanding knowledge of
> the world.
>
> Tom
|