# HG changeset patch # User Henry Thompson # Date 1741625477 0 # Node ID 4426e1a7ddd5d7c7357537358189ff36848dc0a0 # Parent c0bce3eff53a57260ac5053e18ac77d4d5859ff0 near the end of March visit diff -r c0bce3eff53a -r 4426e1a7ddd5 CR_manuscript/CR_v96_full.pdf Binary file CR_manuscript/CR_v96_full.pdf has changed diff -r c0bce3eff53a -r 4426e1a7ddd5 God · R1 ≈ Reference (Sorted).docx Binary file God · R1 ≈ Reference (Sorted).docx has changed diff -r c0bce3eff53a -r 4426e1a7ddd5 God, Approximately.pdf Binary file God, Approximately.pdf has changed diff -r c0bce3eff53a -r 4426e1a7ddd5 brian_2025-03-03.txt --- a/brian_2025-03-03.txt Mon Mar 10 16:49:32 2025 +0000 +++ b/brian_2025-03-03.txt Mon Mar 10 16:51:17 2025 +0000 @@ -87,7 +87,8 @@ The picture of science as it stands is not clear enough/compelling enough to support the morals I want to draw from it. -New section 1: Look, these two sets of sensibilities can't be treated +---------New section 1------- + Look, these two sets of sensibilities can't be treated as independent anymore, because the subject matter of r-s have in fact been domesticated by scientific results. @@ -109,6 +110,13 @@ people are trying to corral a whole bunch of topics into the scientific ones. +There are many topics which classically had been thought to fall into +the [r-s] category which are being explored in something like the +scientific one. So, bottom-line, the whole distinction needs to be +rethought. + +-----End of section----- + Is there anything like a consensus/received wisdom as to what those two forms of understanding are? On the science side, people might assume that it's causal explanations (mechanism). The (r-s?) critique