[lbo-talk] Neo-Lamarckianism???? Come on!

[John Thornton]

Miles Jackson wrote:
> Charles Brown wrote:
>   
>> Chris Doss 
>>
>> I have never met a scientist, in person or in print,
>> who asserted that everything is knowable. Science
>> itself does not hold anything. Science is a technique.
>>
>> ^^^^
>> CB: Ok.  Scientific technique always proceeds as if what it's
>> investigating can be understood. And no one can tell everybody that
>> there are questions for which the scientific technique cannot be used.
>> No one can foreclose use of the scientific technique on any question. No
>> one can declare for others  that some question is an insoluble mystery.
>>
>> Lets call it scientific philosophy. Scientific philosophy holds that
>> there is no question for which scientific inquiry cannot be applied, no
>> question for which it can be declared that it cannot be understood
>> through scientific technique.
>>
>>   
>>     
> I don't know of any scientists who make this grandiose claim.   There 
> are many forms of knowledge that have nothing to do with science (e.g., 
> analysis of art and literature).  I'm a big fan of the scientific 
> method, but it's important to recognize that there are many domains of 
> human knowledge where the scientific method is completely irrelevant.
>
> Miles

Because art and literature are subject is why they don't lend themselves 
to scientific methods.
People who claim the supernatural is real are claiming something very 
different.
Theists claim god is real in an objective way. They claim much the same 
thing for the afterlife.
That claim makes it a viable topic for scientific methods.

John Thornton