Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site csd2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!csd2!martillo
From: martillo@csd2.UUCP (Joachim Martillo)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Proof of Outlandish Propositions
Message-ID: <3780079@csd2.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Sep-85 09:41:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: csd2.3780079
Posted: Mon Sep  2 09:41:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Sep-85 05:24:37 EDT
References: <293@mit-athena.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 11

I think Bill Tannenbaum is missing my point.  I am not questioning the
efficacy of the assumptions which science make.  Also for  my question
the success of science  as a method  of  relating to  the universe  is
irrelevant.  I want a answer why the  assumptions  which science makes
are so efficacious.  Who are what makes these good assumptions?  I  am
asking a meta-scientific question and I  consider at best  a tautology
the answer that these are good assumptions because they work.

Now if Bill Tannenbaum is telling me there are some questions  which I
may ask and some which I may not,  this sounds like  some religions of
which I have heard.