Re: What's the Science of Dinosaurs?

[philidor11@snet.net]

<Is this Socrates, or is it Kant [It is Kant; your vestiges of 
memory are accurate.]? I've done quite well ridding my memory 
of 
that stuff. As you imply in your post, debating such aspects 
of "knowing" and 
"factuality" is quite counterproductive and fruitless. Philosophers 
are among 
the world's greatest BS artists, and it's good to avoid their 
silly semantic 
pitfalls and snares  [Funny, that's where Positivism ended up.]. 
We all know that we exist, even if they seem not to.>

I'd already decided to drop this line of discussion here as unproductive, 
but this kind of argument by assertion is a goad.  Let's just 
look at the challenge, and move on.
You can't just sweep the pieces off the board if you don't like 
the position.
As an exemplar, is cladistics science?
The short answer is No.
The long answer is also No.
Not if science is about approaching and eventually reaching a 
single, apprehendable truth.  If it can't, then science is a 
social activity, shared by those who've leapt to belief.
Let the festivities continue!
And the best of the joys of the season to all!




___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.