On 08/05/2006, at 9:40 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 5/6/06, The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Their IS no way of knowing things without the scientific process.
You're just arguing religion again.
Thus, prior to the invention of scientific methods, nobody knew
anything.
It must have been a weird, weird world.
The "scientific method" boils down to "trial and error, repeat what
works". Without that, and the ability to remember the errors, nobody
*did* know anything. The concept of knowledge itself means nothing
without that.
The inventions are procedural and statistical, making the process
easier to peer-review. The process itself is as messy, curiosity-
driven, insightful and serendipitous as ever. There really isn't a
single "scientific method", it's more a toolbox which is used
differently depending on the question being asked.
And all the people in the world today who imagine they know things
that they
didn't come to know through science, they know nothing?
The trial and error can be displaced, spatially, individually,
nationally, temporally. Not everyone needs to work everything out
from first principles, in fact most people through history have
benefitted from the insights of a few. But *someone* had to go
through the process. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" is a
truism, but it's how we got where we are.
It's networking. Surely *you* can appreciate that?
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
