Re: [A-List] How "scientific" is science?

[GeorgeCSDS@xxxxxxx]

It would be much appreciated if Grok would share his particular 50 word definitions/explanations of:

1)     How *dialectical-materialist science overcomes this empiricist problematic*?

2)     "Socialism."

Thanking you in advance and, dare I say it, Happy New Year.

Rob
www.centersds.com

*****************
In a message dated 12/17/05 11:21:26 AM, grok@xxxxxxxxx writes:

> --BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > It appears that the limits of science were built into
> > it from the moment of its inception. Science is
> > objective, and it runs into its limits when it
> > approaches anything subjective. Science has a very
> > hard time tackling issues like hope and faith, and
> > even the true purpose of biology: discovering what is
> > life. We know what makes living things tick, but we
> > have no clue what life really is.
>
> In fact, dialectical-materialist science overcomes this
> empiricist problematic, no matter how much bourgeois science
> - -- or politix -- denies it.
>
> There's no real crisis of Science. Only the crisis of
> Capitalism.
>
>
>
> > And now it appears that our scientific civilization
> > has helped to create a crisis of objectivity. Science
> > has allowed us to manipulate our environment to the
> > extreme, but we lack the subjective empathy to
> > understand when we have violated our environment and
> > our fellow human beings. And this is at the crux of
> > all our various problems: so long as we do not
> > empathize subjectively with our environment and our
> > fellow human beings, we will go on using them as we
> > see fit for our own personal benefit.
>
> (Short answer): The solution, as always, is Socialism.
>
> - -- grok.