Re: truth


	/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

Re: truth

Posted By: Ben A. Potter Date: 8/12/05 12:40 p.m.
In Response To: truth (MrHen)

I think that the key issue here is our attitudes about truth as a concept and the epistemology of science. Many laypersons understand truth to be absolute. Science as a process will never get there, given the nature of science and its limitations. This limitation (i.e., limited to empirical phenomena, observation, and testing) is a key strength of science. For instance, we cannot differentiate between (a) evolution as a natural process and (b) some sort of metaphysical "God" acting through evolution. Such an hypothesis is "out of bounds" as it contains supernatural elements.
Maybe I read too much into your statement about the goals of science and religion. The problem is that people equate the epistemology of the two domains, and that leads to a misunderstanding of what science does. All three of the criteria I presented show significant differences in providing knowledge claims. Given the general ignorance of the American public about evolutionary biology (among many other things), I felt it was necessary to add my input. However, from a philosophical standpoint, I can understand your point.
Cheers,
Ben
: Eh... so I started a response and it quickly ballooned on me. Near the end I
: felt like I was writing a philosophy essay... sorry about that.
: As I said, I'm a crack philosopher and I can get carried away. Obviously, I
: would appreciate it if you pointed out anything ill it contains. Near the
: end I finally realized we may have been breaking semantics again.
: "Actually, scientists do not search for the "truth." Truth is
: a metaphysical statement."
: I don't see how "truth" being a metaphysical statement has anything
: to do with what science is looking for. Even looking at the Criterion of
: Demarcation, the criterion has nothing to do with the goal or purpose of
: the scientific method. It merely involves the process with which the
: method is carried out.
: "Science cannot "prove" anything absolutely in the sense that
: you can in mathematics. We can refute hypotheses with explicit test
: implications. Mathematics deals with proofs only because their veracity is
: couched in terms of their premises."
: The key word there is obviously "absolutely". The only difference
: is that Mathematics refuses to budge their rules and assumptions where
: Science doesn't have a problem with it. Science can still prove something
: in a given system or prove a system incorrect.
: By looking at each hypothesis as a closed system one could consider each
: refutal of a hypothesis as a proof. It's only when you take the entire
: scientific plane into account that it no longer looks like a proof and the
: same thing can be said of Mathematics. If I doubt the validity of what
: "+" means I will then doubt the validity of "2 + 2 =
: 4" and from there I can destroy most of the "proofs" within
: Mathematics.
: The difference is that doubting Mathematics' assumptions seem ludicrous where
: it is expected for science. Why?
: "Empirical science is actually a quest for ever better approximations
: of the natural world. Scientific methodologies offer a way of
: understanding empirical reality (as defined by our observations). Science
: evalutes competing explanations of empirical phenomena."
: That's why. Since science deals explicitly with empirical phenomena it must
: allow for the possibility for competing phenomena, just as you said. But
: this doesn't deny truth. It is, in fact, the very quest of truth.
: Given the fact that every single empirical phenomena could be reduced to a
: question of metaphysics there must, at some point, be a given set of rules
: that defines the system. If it there wasn't this foundational set of rules
: or assumptions the experiment would break the first of the three Criterion
: you mentioned.
: Take these assumed rules and treat them like the Mathematical rules mentioned
: above and we now have proofs and truth. It has only been abstracted
: further down the path of empirical phenomena.
: Since all of these hypotheses are created and either refuted (Criterion 1) or
: continually upheld (Criterion 2) there must have been a purpose and that
: is to eliminate as much as possible of the infinite unknown (Criterion 3).
: Also known as the search for truth.
: The hiccough that comes when applying truth to certain objects is that truth
: is, as you pointed out, metaphysical. Thanks to the glory of metaphysics
: this truth can be abstracted to any set of rules such as Mathematics or
: science.
: If one allows for the proofs contained within Mathematics to be considered
: "truth" than so must all the proofs and disproves held within
: the confines of whatever system of assumptions science has chosen to wear
: for the day. Regardless of whether this truth is useful or not it is still
: truth; it has merely been abstracted to fit within a particular system.
: Absolute truth, or the idea that things have an innate, global truth
: quality to them, is an entirely different form of truth which cannot be
: empirically verified (failing Criterion 1) unless you have control over
: what gives each object or idea its truth quality which defeats the entire
: point of trying to find out what it is (failing Criterions 2 & 3).
: There is nothing scientific about absolute truth.
: "Here's a bit from a lecture I gave a few years back. It might help you
: understand science a little better.
: Those were pretty cool, actually, and did help quite a bit. Thanks.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

Marathon Pfhor D-M.A. 8/2/05 6:01 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/2/05 6:41 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Vid Boi 8/2/05 9:33 a.m.

tBC's and Frigidman's replies are kinda intriguin *NM* D-M.A. 8/2/05 10:49 a.m.

Yeah, maybe. *NM* Bob-B-Q 8/2/05 11:35 a.m.

that's what i would have done MrHen 8/2/05 2:07 p.m.

Re: that's what i would have done Vid Boi 8/2/05 11:48 p.m.

It's not dead, it's 11 pages long and counting! *NM* D-M.A. 8/2/05 11:54 p.m.

11 pages long, counting, and not about 'Thon... *NM* Vid Boi 8/4/05 1:48 a.m.

*sigh* I'll never get a PC Forge... *NM* reagan64 8/5/05 6:14 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Reiginko 8/3/05 5:31 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor D-M.A. 8/3/05 6:01 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Ori 8/3/05 6:33 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Jacke 8/3/05 10:47 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/3/05 1:17 p.m.

ehh... MrHen 8/3/05 1:57 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor D-M.A. 8/3/05 6:06 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/3/05 6:32 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/3/05 6:59 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/3/05 7:06 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Vid Boi 8/4/05 2:15 a.m.

Someone thinks I'm bright! Happy joy joy :-) *NM* D-M.A. 8/4/05 3:53 a.m.

if by all men... MrHen 8/4/05 4:55 a.m.

Re: if by all men... Forrest of B.org 8/4/05 6:01 p.m.

I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest? *NM* Steve Levinson 8/4/05 7:18 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Forrest of B.org 8/4/05 8:43 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest D-M.A. 8/4/05 11:09 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Forrest of B.org 8/5/05 7:57 a.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest John Molloy 8/5/05 2:28 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Forrest of B.org 8/6/05 10:07 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest John Molloy 8/6/05 11:42 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Johannes Gunnar 8/7/05 12:31 a.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Johannes Gunnar 8/7/05 12:31 a.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Vid Boi 8/7/05 12:49 a.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Andrew Nagy 8/8/05 6:46 a.m.

Off! Weirdness... *NM* Vid Boi 8/8/05 4:10 p.m.

I like the fishnets Forrest blake37 8/5/05 3:06 a.m.

LOL! i like your outfit Forrest! :P *NM* Johannes Gunnar 8/5/05 4:32 a.m.

Re: if by all men... Vid Boi 8/7/05 12:56 a.m.

I hate that term. MrHen 8/7/05 6:15 a.m.

Re: I hate that term. Steve Levinson 8/7/05 10:45 a.m.

agreed MrHen 8/8/05 5:01 a.m.

Re: agreed Steve Levinson 8/8/05 6:03 a.m.

Re: agreed blake37 8/8/05 6:50 a.m.

Re: agreed Steve Levinson 8/8/05 8:14 a.m.

Re: agreed MrHen 8/8/05 10:26 a.m.

Re: agreed blake37 8/8/05 4:03 p.m.

Re: agreed Vid Boi 8/8/05 4:32 p.m.

haha, yeah... MrHen 8/8/05 5:39 p.m.

Re: haha, yeah... Tyler 8/9/05 6:41 a.m.

ah, okay MrHen 8/8/05 9:59 a.m.

Re: I hate that term. Dylan 8/9/05 4:28 a.m.

uh... now i'm confused... MrHen 8/9/05 5:17 a.m.

Re: uh... now i'm confused... Dylan 8/9/05 8:59 a.m.

hating terminals? *gasp!* MrHen 8/9/05 9:23 a.m.

Re: uh... now i'm confused... AlfredMordeir 8/9/05 7:00 p.m.

Re: uh... now i'm confused... MrHen 8/10/05 4:52 a.m.

Re: uh... now i'm confused... Dylan 8/11/05 4:39 a.m.

I usually don't copy articles but, Oh well. AlfredMordeir 8/11/05 8:54 a.m.

Social Darwinism Dave 8/10/05 2:53 a.m.

more on social darwinism MrHen 8/10/05 5:10 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Reiginko 8/10/05 6:47 a.m.

Ohh... MrHen 8/10/05 8:46 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Vid Boi 8/10/05 11:40 a.m.

Haha, that's terrible. *NM* MrHen 8/11/05 5:05 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism MrHen 8/11/05 5:19 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Dave 8/11/05 7:10 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Reiginko 8/11/05 7:49 a.m.

god of the gaps MrHen 8/11/05 8:32 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Forrest of B.org 8/11/05 9:19 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Forrest of B.org 8/11/05 9:17 a.m.

not a fan of the link MrHen 8/12/05 12:56 p.m.

Re: not a fan of the link Forrest of B.org 8/12/05 1:16 p.m.

meh MrHen 8/12/05 2:24 p.m.

Spirituality vs Rationality Forrest of B.org 8/12/05 3:34 p.m.

Re: Spirituality vs Rationality MrHen 8/13/05 10:42 p.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Ben A. Potter 8/11/05 11:20 a.m.

truth MrHen 8/12/05 12:05 p.m.

Re: truth Ben A. Potter 8/12/05 12:40 p.m.

agreed MrHen 8/12/05 1:01 p.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Ben A. Potter 8/10/05 9:04 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Steve Levinson 8/10/05 12:25 p.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Ben A. Potter 8/10/05 1:12 p.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Dave 8/10/05 6:35 p.m.

Re: Social Darwinism Dylan 8/11/05 5:02 a.m.

Creationism MrHen 8/11/05 5:15 a.m.

Re: Social Darwinism Ben A. Potter 8/11/05 11:10 a.m.

Re: Social Darwinism Enkidu 8/11/05 4:20 p.m.

"Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes MrHen 8/9/05 5:27 a.m.

Has anybody noticed.... blake37 8/9/05 7:06 a.m.

and talk about off-topic . . . *NM* Steve Levinson 8/9/05 7:30 a.m.

:P MrHen 8/9/05 7:52 a.m.

Re: Has anybody noticed.... D-M.A. 8/9/05 7:58 a.m.

Re: "Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes Vid Boi 8/10/05 11:53 a.m.

Re: "Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes blake37 8/10/05 12:53 p.m.

oops... *blushes* *NM* MrHen 8/11/05 5:16 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/3/05 6:54 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/3/05 7:02 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/3/05 7:13 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/3/05 7:20 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/3/05 7:40 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Reiginko 8/4/05 12:19 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Vid Boi 8/4/05 2:19 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/4/05 6:19 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Reiginko 8/5/05 6:57 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/5/05 8:14 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Vid Boi 8/4/05 2:24 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor MrHen 8/4/05 5:06 a.m.

oh... that makes much more sense... MrHen 8/4/05 5:11 a.m.

Re: oh... that makes much more sense... Steve Levinson 8/4/05 1:04 p.m.

Rumor update ukimalefu 8/4/05 7:49 p.m.

Re: Rumor update RedMage13 8/5/05 3:49 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Andrew Nagy 8/8/05 7:53 a.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:
: I think that the key issue here is our attitudes about truth as a concept and : the epistemology of science. Many laypersons understand truth to be : absolute. Science as a process will never get there, given the nature of : science and its limitations. This limitation (i.e., limited to empirical : phenomena, observation, and testing) is a key strength of science. For : instance, we cannot differentiate between (a) evolution as a natural : process and (b) some sort of metaphysical "God" acting through : evolution. Such an hypothesis is "out of bounds" as it contains : supernatural elements. : Maybe I read too much into your statement about the goals of science and : religion. The problem is that people equate the epistemology of the two : domains, and that leads to a misunderstanding of what science does. All : three of the criteria I presented show significant differences in : providing knowledge claims. Given the general ignorance of the American : public about evolutionary biology (among many other things), I felt it was : necessary to add my input. However, from a philosophical standpoint, I can : understand your point. : Cheers, : Ben

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If necessary, enter your password below:
Password:

Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org
Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.

Marathon Pfhor	D-M.A.	8/2/05 6:01 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/2/05 6:41 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Vid Boi	8/2/05 9:33 a.m.
tBC's and Frigidman's replies are kinda intriguin NM	D-M.A.	8/2/05 10:49 a.m.
Yeah, maybe. NM	Bob-B-Q	8/2/05 11:35 a.m.
that's what i would have done	MrHen	8/2/05 2:07 p.m.
Re: that's what i would have done	Vid Boi	8/2/05 11:48 p.m.
It's not dead, it's 11 pages long and counting! NM	D-M.A.	8/2/05 11:54 p.m.
11 pages long, counting, and not about 'Thon... NM	Vid Boi	8/4/05 1:48 a.m.
sigh I'll never get a PC Forge... NM	reagan64	8/5/05 6:14 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Reiginko	8/3/05 5:31 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	D-M.A.	8/3/05 6:01 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Ori	8/3/05 6:33 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Jacke	8/3/05 10:47 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/3/05 1:17 p.m.
ehh...	MrHen	8/3/05 1:57 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	D-M.A.	8/3/05 6:06 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/3/05 6:32 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/3/05 6:59 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/3/05 7:06 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Vid Boi	8/4/05 2:15 a.m.
Someone thinks I'm bright! Happy joy joy :-) NM	D-M.A.	8/4/05 3:53 a.m.
if by all men...	MrHen	8/4/05 4:55 a.m.
Re: if by all men...	Forrest of B.org	8/4/05 6:01 p.m.
I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest? NM	Steve Levinson	8/4/05 7:18 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Forrest of B.org	8/4/05 8:43 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	D-M.A.	8/4/05 11:09 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Forrest of B.org	8/5/05 7:57 a.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	John Molloy	8/5/05 2:28 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Forrest of B.org	8/6/05 10:07 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	John Molloy	8/6/05 11:42 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Johannes Gunnar	8/7/05 12:31 a.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Johannes Gunnar	8/7/05 12:31 a.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Vid Boi	8/7/05 12:49 a.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Andrew Nagy	8/8/05 6:46 a.m.
Off! Weirdness... NM	Vid Boi	8/8/05 4:10 p.m.
I like the fishnets Forrest	blake37	8/5/05 3:06 a.m.
LOL! i like your outfit Forrest! :P NM	Johannes Gunnar	8/5/05 4:32 a.m.
Re: if by all men...	Vid Boi	8/7/05 12:56 a.m.
I hate that term.	MrHen	8/7/05 6:15 a.m.
Re: I hate that term.	Steve Levinson	8/7/05 10:45 a.m.
agreed	MrHen	8/8/05 5:01 a.m.
Re: agreed	Steve Levinson	8/8/05 6:03 a.m.
Re: agreed	blake37	8/8/05 6:50 a.m.
Re: agreed	Steve Levinson	8/8/05 8:14 a.m.
Re: agreed	MrHen	8/8/05 10:26 a.m.
Re: agreed	blake37	8/8/05 4:03 p.m.
Re: agreed	Vid Boi	8/8/05 4:32 p.m.
haha, yeah...	MrHen	8/8/05 5:39 p.m.
Re: haha, yeah...	Tyler	8/9/05 6:41 a.m.
ah, okay	MrHen	8/8/05 9:59 a.m.
Re: I hate that term.	Dylan	8/9/05 4:28 a.m.
uh... now i'm confused...	MrHen	8/9/05 5:17 a.m.
Re: uh... now i'm confused...	Dylan	8/9/05 8:59 a.m.
hating terminals? gasp!	MrHen	8/9/05 9:23 a.m.
Re: uh... now i'm confused...	AlfredMordeir	8/9/05 7:00 p.m.
Re: uh... now i'm confused...	MrHen	8/10/05 4:52 a.m.
Re: uh... now i'm confused...	Dylan	8/11/05 4:39 a.m.
I usually don't copy articles but, Oh well.	AlfredMordeir	8/11/05 8:54 a.m.
Social Darwinism	Dave	8/10/05 2:53 a.m.
more on social darwinism	MrHen	8/10/05 5:10 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Reiginko	8/10/05 6:47 a.m.
Ohh...	MrHen	8/10/05 8:46 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Vid Boi	8/10/05 11:40 a.m.
Haha, that's terrible. NM	MrHen	8/11/05 5:05 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	MrHen	8/11/05 5:19 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Dave	8/11/05 7:10 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Reiginko	8/11/05 7:49 a.m.
god of the gaps	MrHen	8/11/05 8:32 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Forrest of B.org	8/11/05 9:19 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Forrest of B.org	8/11/05 9:17 a.m.
not a fan of the link	MrHen	8/12/05 12:56 p.m.
Re: not a fan of the link	Forrest of B.org	8/12/05 1:16 p.m.
meh	MrHen	8/12/05 2:24 p.m.
Spirituality vs Rationality	Forrest of B.org	8/12/05 3:34 p.m.
Re: Spirituality vs Rationality	MrHen	8/13/05 10:42 p.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Ben A. Potter	8/11/05 11:20 a.m.
truth	MrHen	8/12/05 12:05 p.m.
Re: truth	Ben A. Potter	8/12/05 12:40 p.m.
agreed	MrHen	8/12/05 1:01 p.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Ben A. Potter	8/10/05 9:04 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Steve Levinson	8/10/05 12:25 p.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Ben A. Potter	8/10/05 1:12 p.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Dave	8/10/05 6:35 p.m.
Re: Social Darwinism	Dylan	8/11/05 5:02 a.m.
Creationism	MrHen	8/11/05 5:15 a.m.
Re: Social Darwinism	Ben A. Potter	8/11/05 11:10 a.m.
Re: Social Darwinism	Enkidu	8/11/05 4:20 p.m.
"Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes	MrHen	8/9/05 5:27 a.m.
Has anybody noticed....	blake37	8/9/05 7:06 a.m.
and talk about off-topic . . . NM	Steve Levinson	8/9/05 7:30 a.m.
:P	MrHen	8/9/05 7:52 a.m.
Re: Has anybody noticed....	D-M.A.	8/9/05 7:58 a.m.
Re: "Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes	Vid Boi	8/10/05 11:53 a.m.
Re: "Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes	blake37	8/10/05 12:53 p.m.
oops... blushes NM	MrHen	8/11/05 5:16 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/3/05 6:54 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/3/05 7:02 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/3/05 7:13 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/3/05 7:20 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/3/05 7:40 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Reiginko	8/4/05 12:19 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Vid Boi	8/4/05 2:19 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/4/05 6:19 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Reiginko	8/5/05 6:57 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/5/05 8:14 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Vid Boi	8/4/05 2:24 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	MrHen	8/4/05 5:06 a.m.
oh... that makes much more sense...	MrHen	8/4/05 5:11 a.m.
Re: oh... that makes much more sense...	Steve Levinson	8/4/05 1:04 p.m.
Rumor update	ukimalefu	8/4/05 7:49 p.m.
Re: Rumor update	RedMage13	8/5/05 3:49 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Andrew Nagy	8/8/05 7:53 a.m.



	Your Name:
	Your E-Mail Address:
	Subject:
	Message: : I think that the key issue here is our attitudes about truth as a concept and : the epistemology of science. Many laypersons understand truth to be : absolute. Science as a process will never get there, given the nature of : science and its limitations. This limitation (i.e., limited to empirical : phenomena, observation, and testing) is a key strength of science. For : instance, we cannot differentiate between (a) evolution as a natural : process and (b) some sort of metaphysical "God" acting through : evolution. Such an hypothesis is "out of bounds" as it contains : supernatural elements. : Maybe I read too much into your statement about the goals of science and : religion. The problem is that people equate the epistemology of the two : domains, and that leads to a misunderstanding of what science does. All : three of the criteria I presented show significant differences in : providing knowledge claims. Given the general ignorance of the American : public about evolutionary biology (among many other things), I felt it was : necessary to add my input. However, from a philosophical standpoint, I can : understand your point. : Cheers, : Ben
	If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message, please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
	Optional Link URL:
	Optional Link Title:
	If necessary, enter your password below:
	Password: