>i am afraid we are going around (at least i am) in circles. that science
>produces results seems to be only because scientists immediately adopt
>anything that works, as a science. so in effect, it only holds true that
>science is what scientists do.
>
> --ravi
Well, it's not as bad as all that. What works is not a grab bag. There's a coherence and structure to it. Thus, Einstein overturns classical mechanics one sort of basis, and the quantum revolution on another, but lo! relativistic effects show up at the quantum level. If something "worked" that didn't cohere at all with the other things we know, we'd insist on making it fit, seeking an explanation in terms of the things we know, before we accpted it whole-heartedly. In fact this is the case, e.g.,w ith acupuncture, which "works," at least as an anesthetic, but we have no idea why. The classical Chinese medical theory is nonsense, and there's no modern medical explanation of why it should work. As you might expect, acupuncture is not welcomes as a science. It's regarded as a technique and a phenomena to be explained. So I don't the circularity you complain of exists.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com