Talk:Science: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>David Tribe
imported>Nancy Sculerati MD
(→‎Mofdifications: corrected spelling)
Line 3: Line 3:
I put here the reasons for some changes.
I put here the reasons for some changes.


* I deleted all the paragraphs, which are refering to supernatiral. The text stated taht science is not able to examine supernatural phenomena. But this statement presupposes that there are such phenomena.
* I deleted all the paragraphs, which are refering to supernatural. The text stated that science is not able to examine supernatural phenomena. But this statement presupposes that there are such phenomena.
*I also deleted oll reference that science can not examine "what is". Science is of course not a kind of fundamentalist realism. But actually the realism debate is not a scientific issue. We must formulate science in a way, which is devoid of such ideologic debates.
*I also deleted all reference that science can not examine "what is". Science is of course not a kind of fundamentalist realism. But actually the realism debate is not a scientific issue. We must formulate science in a way, which is devoid of such ideologic debates.
* I also modified the parts, which describe the negative effects of science. I made it clearer that science is only a tool. The tool can be used ina good or bad way. This is not a scientific issue.
* I also modified the parts, which describe the negative effects of science. I made it clearer that science is only a tool. The tool can be used ina good or bad way. This is not a scientific issue.



Revision as of 18:59, 7 February 2007

Mofdifications

I put here the reasons for some changes.

  • I deleted all the paragraphs, which are refering to supernatural. The text stated that science is not able to examine supernatural phenomena. But this statement presupposes that there are such phenomena.
  • I also deleted all reference that science can not examine "what is". Science is of course not a kind of fundamentalist realism. But actually the realism debate is not a scientific issue. We must formulate science in a way, which is devoid of such ideologic debates.
  • I also modified the parts, which describe the negative effects of science. I made it clearer that science is only a tool. The tool can be used ina good or bad way. This is not a scientific issue.

--Matthias Brendel 06:13, 30 November 2006 (CST)

RE

  • I also modified the parts, which describe the negative effects of science. I made it clearer that science is only a tool. The tool can be used ina good or bad way. This is not a scientific issue.

Perhaps a link to articles in Economics and Politics where such discussions are relevant may be useful for a variety of reasons David Tribe 16:11, 7 February 2007 (CST)