>
> ravi wrote:
>
>> 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".
>>
>
> This would seem to have a similar force to Marx's reply to the
> reporter's question, "What is?" "Struggle."
>
> Most of what I have ever heard called "science" reveals, upon
> examination, that it has involved, at some point, a conscious effort to
> change some part or aspect of the world, if only by staining a slide or
> digging up a layer of earth. If you want to know what a pear tastes like
> you must change the world by biting into the pear.
>
i am afraid your point fails me, if it is in the context of the current thread of defining science. is not all knowing based on interacting with the world?
--ravi, malignant fuck #1 ;-)