...
> This lady has discovered that while, at
> home, children adapt to develop a certain modus-vivendi with their
> parents, with their peers they develoop a completely different
> personality structure, and the two are completely "split" (<--that
> word again). This is a bit "off the subject", but insofar as
> it is true, it well fits in with all the other splitting that
> goes on in our so-called "society", where -- to return to the
> subject --, e.g., wha scientists *do* and what they *think
> they are doing* need have no logical intersection (the
> union of what one does and what one thinks one does may be
> the null set).
>
Do you mean that individuals adapt different roles in different
groups? Gee, I thought that was "discovered" a very long time ago...
> It sure isn't something "the American [or other] people" do. Most
> people believe in atoms these days for no better reasons than
> their ancestors believed in God. Both "atoms" and "God" can
> explain everything.
>
Beg your pardon, but we have somewhat more convincing
evidence for atoms. This evidence is even comprehendable
by the average student in any secondary school level chemistry class.
By the way, I suppose I am a scientist as I am a BSc(Hon) in
chemistry. And I work in a research laboratory... I have never really
considered myself as a "scientist"...
>
...
> I have no desire to denigrate "science", but only to *situate*
> scientific praxis in the overall horizon of human existence,
> wherein alone there is anything and it is anything at all,
> or at least, "if there is anything else, whatever that might
> mean", we can, on principle, have no more access to it than
> we can experience anything we do not experience (or not
> experience anyting we do experience).
>
...
Are you sure that this paragraph makes sense?
Could I have some concise English, please?
I can only assume fuzzy ideas if it looks like
fuzzy ideas.
Eva
> \brad mccormick
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
