100 Most Important Science Books

David Lloyd-Jones icomm5 at netcom.ca
Fri Nov 12 20:37:21 EST 1999


Nick Medford <nick at hermit0.demon.co.uk> wrote

> If you mean that one is more scientific than the other, I wouldn't agree.
In
> terms of the intellectual activity involved, they seem pretty similar to
me.
> You catch your butterfly, check in a book to identify it, and label it
> accordingly. Or- you get your stamp, check in a book....etc. Or does
> butterfly collecting have other dimensions?

I understand it does. For starters there are a whole lot of butterflies that
aren't in your books, and part of the sport is hunting for them.

How they get arranged in the books is determined by family resemblances,
feeding habits, lineal heritances, etc. etc. All of these are mere
knowledge, I suppose, but then that's what science is.

Today the butterfly collector could sneer that they are real scientists,
while physicists have become nothing but dogmatists of idealist metaphysics.

                                Cheers,

                                   -dlj.






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list