Mercurial > hg > BCS
changeset 73:4426e1a7ddd5
near the end of March visit
| author | Henry Thompson <ht@markup.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| date | Mon, 10 Mar 2025 16:51:17 +0000 |
| parents | c0bce3eff53a |
| children | 9e922ce6918d |
| files | CR_manuscript/CR_v96_full.pdf God · R1 ≈ Reference (Sorted).docx God, Approximately.pdf brian_2025-03-03.txt |
| diffstat | 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) [+] |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- 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