Talk:Science: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>David Tribe |
imported>David Tribe |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* I also modified the parts, which describe the negative effects of science. I made it clearer that science is only a tool. The tool can be used ina good or bad way. This is not a scientific issue. | * I also modified the parts, which describe the negative effects of science. I made it clearer that science is only a tool. The tool can be used ina good or bad way. This is not a scientific issue. | ||
Perkaps a link to articles | Perkaps a link to articles in Economics and Politics where such discussions are relevant may be useful for a variety of reasons [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 16:11, 7 February 2007 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 16:12, 7 February 2007
Mofdifications
I put here the reasons for some changes.
- I deleted all the paragraphs, which are refering to supernatiral. The text stated taht science is not able to examine supernatural phenomena. But this statement presupposes that there are such phenomena.
- I also deleted oll reference that science can not examine "what is". Science is of course not a kind of fundamentalist realism. But actually the realism debate is not a scientific issue. We must formulate science in a way, which is devoid of such ideologic debates.
- I also modified the parts, which describe the negative effects of science. I made it clearer that science is only a tool. The tool can be used ina good or bad way. This is not a scientific issue.
--Matthias Brendel 06:13, 30 November 2006 (CST)
RE
- I also modified the parts, which describe the negative effects of science. I made it clearer that science is only a tool. The tool can be used ina good or bad way. This is not a scientific issue.
Perkaps a link to articles in Economics and Politics where such discussions are relevant may be useful for a variety of reasons David Tribe 16:11, 7 February 2007 (CST)