science / philosophy

lisa rogers at
Wed Jun 7 19:09:29 MDT 1995

As the only [practicing, social/biological natural] scientist on the list
that I am aware of, let me simply say NONSENSE to the post appended below.

Lisa Rogers

> >>> boddhisatva <foucault at>  5/4/95, 03:06am >>>
> On the Science/Philosophy debate,
> ...  perhaps science is, in fact, not
> characterized by consistency at all, but by inconsistency.  It seems
> to me that philosophy is the effort to create consistency throughout
> human thought, whereas science seeks only to embrace, as precisely as
> possible, the immediate and definably external, and create consistent
> relations there.  This is why science has, and always will embrace,
> even require inconsistency, while philosophy relates theory in one
> area to all areas.  The biologist doesn't care one whit for chaos
> theory or any other theory unless it can h*lp prove or disprove his
> hypothesis.  He is by definition a relativist.  Philosophs do not
> have the same luxury.  Indeed, it is antithetical to the purpose of
> their pursuit.  Truly great science has been done in the cause of
> prettying up the process of sweeping things under the rug.
> (snip)

     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list