(no subject)

[robinturner]

Found this in kiad's userinfo (I don't know whether she agrees with it or not - probabaly not, judging by the other quotations)

The motto of the Royal Society of London is 'Nullius in verba' : trust not in words. Observation and experiment are what count, not opinion and introspection. Few working scientists have much respect for those who try to interpret nature in metaphysical terms. For most wearers of white coats, philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex: it is cheaper, easier, and some people seem, bafflingly, to prefer it. Outside of psychology it plays almost no part in the functions of the research machine.''
(Steve Jones, University College, London)
From his review of How the Mind Works (by Steve Pinker) in The New York Review of Books (pages 13-14) November 6, 1997.

Typical psychologist reaction. They're stuck with a pre-paradigmatic science, so they sling mud at anything that sound unempirical. Physicists don't have this inferiority complex, and so don't slag off philosophy.

Comments

[kiad.livejournal.com]

Oh, I certainly agree with it. I love the "science" of the early 1600s, where philosophy was used to determine scientific principles, and religion was refered to while understanding the universe.

There was a poetry to science, a holistic nature to the universe, that took our souls into account when understanding the physical world around us....

Does that make sense?

[solri.livejournal.com]

I think so