I appreciate the way in which his postings challenge us to explore the
basic assumptions which we have found helpful in our work but which,
through habit as much as anything else, I for one forget to take out of the
kitbag and re-examine now and again. (Even though the challenge is
uncomfortable at times.)
My own two-pennorth would be to suggest that his implicit definition of
"science" is that it is inductive, while a more generally shared definition
would be to view it as hypothetico-deductive. To a constructivist this
distinction may be over-simple and reeking of positivist epistemology. But
it would nevertheless grant some legitimacy to the stating of a priori
axioms, the better to explore the consequences one might deduce from them:
a la Kelly and every other scientist, personal or "formal", that I've ever
encountered!
Jon Raskin then seems to cater for the remainder of Gary's concerns when he
so elegantly states:
>It seems to me that being "religious" vs. being "scientific" is not
>necessarily the most effective way to distinguish between what I think you
>are trying to get at. Perhaps a more useful way to divide this up
>would be to think of persons as either "dogmatic and righteous" vs.
>"open and selfreflective."
Kind regards,
Devi Jankowicz.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%