Re: J.R. on Bertie's Best Scientism

Robert Owen (
Fri, 26 Nov 1999 02:12:14 -0500

J R Molloy wrote:

> Unfortunately, Bertie Russell subscribed as much to the musings of philosophy as
> to the principles of science. --J. R.
> "Science is nothing but developed perception, integrated intent, common sense
> rounded out and minutely articulated."
> --George Santayana
> ""In formal logic, a contradiction is the signal of defeat: but in the evolution
> of real knowledge it marks the first step in progress toward a victory."
> --Alfred North Whitehead

Well, it is fair to ask then why you included two despised philosophers in your list?

Then there are always inconvenient facts illustrated by the following:

Gottfried Leibnitz, German Philosopher, published his theory of the infinitesimal calculus in October, l684, whereas Newton published his calculus in 1704. While they were essentially identical, Liebnitz's notation was much more convenient, and that is why we still use it, rather than Newton's, today. At the time, Leibnitz was credited for the invention of the calculus, which would have been just as useful to the world if Newton had never discovered it.

Immanuel Kant, German Philosopher (1724-1804), was the originator of what we today called "The Nebular Hypotheses", which offers an explanation of the formation of the Solar System, i.e. the Solar System formed, according to Kant, from a rotating gaseous nebula that slowly contracted and condensed. Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), French mathematical astronomer, further developed Kant's idea, in 1796, when it became known as "the nebular hypothesis".

When, J.R., do you suppose this guild -- or should I say siege -- mentality of science vs. everyone else end?


Robert M. Owen
The Orion Institute
57 W. Morgan Street
Brevard, NC 28712-3659 USA