<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> <div> Maybe you could elaborate why you think Heidegger's anti-science approach is "good " ?  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Charles<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> [WS:] I am not an expert on Heidegger, but based on what I read, he does not strike me as being “anti-science.”  He merely objects to a certain mode of science that developed in modernity and substitutes action for understanding, that is to say, concentrates on constant, almost ritualistic, research activities -or “research activistism” as Doug would say.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Personally, I do not think that there is any “understanding” beyond human experiences – which consists in a large part of research activities – linguistic exercises of much of the philosophical thought notwithstanding.  Btw - the connection between philosophy and poetry did not escape Heidegger.  Both are exercise of creating meaning from syntax and word usage rather than empirical procedures.   However, this also seems like a valid criticism of what passes for science (or art) nowadays i.e. whatever scientists (or artists) do is science (or art), and its truth function does not matter as long as it is accepted as science or art.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Wojtek<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </div> </body> </html>