On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, Nieft / Secola wrote:
> But, Ellie, you surely don't consider the "split" is a result of science,
> do you? As frustrating as science can be at times it is not the cause, but
> the effect of the split--an overall _good_ effect IMO. The human ability to
> abstract has had few reality checks in history, and one assumes, in
> pre-history. Science, at its purest, serves as the best reality checking
> system ever evolved, and you and I both will be rejoicing (won't we?) when
> science takes a serious look at human alimentation (as it now seems to be
> doing in fits and starts).

Dariusz:

        If the "split" itself is bad, then how can its effects be good
or a good thing?
        IMO, science is neither the cause nor the effect. It's something
between the two; it abstracts the real world to the extent that is
neither necessary nor needed, becomes temporarily confused by its own
theories, and then (sometimes) manages to solve the for the unknowns.
        If science is the best reality checking system we have, then
it's no wonder people are so confused about what the reality is.
There would likely never be a need for a reality checking system had
science not shown up to begin with.  Now, everything is just going in
circles: the creator re-creates the creation, which in turn invents
the creator, and so on and so forth...
        Don't you find it curious how the greater the progress science
makes is, the greater the need becomes for science to make further progress?
What would become of us today had science ceased to progress?  Would we
get better (health-wise) or get worse?  Do you see why science can
neither be the cause nor the effect?