>Justin Schwartz wrote:
> > The idea that we accept what science says about its subject
> > matter as true does not make scientists into priests whose
> > views cannot be questioned. Their competence is limited to
> > their subject matters.
>
>Ideally, there would not be a distinct 'we' who listens to what a
>separate-from-us 'science' says. In other words, we don't [simply] accept
>what science says about its subject matter--nor do we wily nily reject it.
>We accept it as provisional and as always open to refutation.
>
>Always?
>
>Yes, always.
Well, obviously scientific claims are accepted provisionally and are open to refutation. However, although "ideally" there would not be a seperate "we," in the real world, not even scientists know everything about all of science, or even their own science. And the rest of us just know what we hear or read. I am not competent to make and evaluate statements about quantum mechanics in the way that a particle physicist is.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.