In article <3pe9bi$j4h at agate.berkeley.edu>, frauwirt at notmendel.Berkeley.EDU
(Ken Frauwirth (BioKen)) writes:
>I suppose this is where I have to say that we must agree to disagree. I
>believe that the Scientific Method is, if not the entire "philosophy" of
>Science (if by "philosophy" you simply mean the approach taken to analyze a
>problem), the most basic and overriding one. It is what differentiates
>Science from any other method of learning about the universe. Put another
>way, the Scientific Method is *the* way that Scientists study nature (which is
>why it is called the Scientific Method). The Scientific Method cares not
>about the "significance", "importance", or "practicality" of knowledge, and
>its exclusive use does not make one a technologist. The difference between
>Science and Technology is in the ends, not the means. The Scientist seeks
>knowledge for its own sake, while the Technologist seeks knowledge to solve a
>specific practical problem. But the Scientist can only learn what s/he can
>test, so there are still practical concerns in the pursuit of Science.
I agree (for the most part) and on the rest we must indeed agree to disagree.
Chris Thoburn
