Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!crm
From: crm@duke.UUCP (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Science as a limited tool
Message-ID: <4324@duke.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-May-84 11:48:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: duke.4324
Posted: Thu May 10 11:48:18 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 12-May-84 07:47:07 EDT
References: <133@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Duke University
Lines: 30

I am going to once again react to one little taken-out-of-context
thing, then reply generally...

(if anyone notices a little flame around the edges here, well...)

David Norris said in the article to which I am replying that we can 
safely lump philosophy in with theology.  

No.

In fact, philosophy has often -- perhaps usually! -- been in conflict
with theology.  (Consider that Plato and Socrates were both strongly
opposed to the then-current religion; or consider that Spinoza was
"excommunicated" from the Jewish community for his views.)  Philo-
sophy has been the only branch of knowledge which has *defended* us
from theology.

Philosophy gets a lot of bad press nowadays, but that is because
any time something in philosophy becomes really well-defined, we
name it something else. Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher, and
the first 4000 years of the history of logic were history of
philosophy.

(EOFlame)

As to references in the philosophy of science, perhaps the best
is Popper's *Logik der Forschuung*, translated as "the Logic
of Scientific Discovery" or some such (the book isn't right at hand).
A better simple exposition is in Popper's autobiography, "Unended
Quest", which is also a really fascinating book!