Re: preposterous

Date: Fri Apr 06 2001 - 20:07:53 EDT

  • Next message: Preston Garrison: "Re: Functional proteins from a random library"

    I am surprised that the philosophy quarter has not said anything yet.

    May I suggest that the origins of the scientific method had their foundations
    in epistemology. Historically, I think Francis Bacon was at least one of the
    earliest to criticize the wrong headedness of using the Aristotelian approach
    to shape ones reasoning about nature. Although perhaps not as strongly so, I
    seem to recall reading essays by Rene Descartes which also contributed
    to the scientific approach. Both these folk where first and foremost
    although Rene Desecartes was also known as a mathematician.

    In fact, before roughly 1850, there were no physics departments. "Physics"
    a subfield that grew out of the department of "natural philosophy". So
    is foundational, but all the subfields of science have grown and adapted from
    eclectic collection of methodologies of scientific inquiry that proved

    by Grace alone we proceed,

    PS. For those of you who read "physics hubris", I stand corrected:
    Crick was a "Doctor of Science".

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 06 2001 - 20:08:01 EDT