>
> I understand the difference between defining science by context of discovery
> versus by context of justification. Neither one seems to reflect what I
> think Greg is saying, and that's why I'm a bit confused.
>
greg has since clarified that i was not correct with my attempt at identifying his position (my apologies for that). i was trying to respond to your point (defining science by its product is circular) by suggesting that perhaps its not: you can bring an idea, any idea arrived at by any means to the table. it will be called science if your context of justification is "scientific". its clear to me that you are already aware of the point i am trying to make, so this post is only to explain my though process in making it.
--ravi