Boris Steipe wrote:
> Boris replies:
>
> > John J. Kineman wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > Once an event takes place, however,
> > > "nature" includes everything that results.
> > >
> > > The paper I am trying to finish right now identifies time scale as the
most
> > > distinguising dimension.
> [...]
>
> This is an interesting concept, thanks.
>
> But the point I am trying to make is the following: in the natural sciences it
> is commonplace to speak of natural and non-natural substances (and not only
> processes). Given that the term _is_ used, what is the meaning in this
> context? My feeling is that for a physicist or biologist it would violate
> scientific method to use it with the all-encompassing "philosophical" meaning
> you (and Don Mickulecky) are proposing: once "natural" encompasses everything
> that exists, it cannot distinguish between entities anymore and becomes
> obsolete as a statement about the subjects of natural science. On the other
> hand, the use in the sense of "everything that is _known_ to exist" allows
> distinguishing entities and still grasps the essence of the concept.
>
> The key issue is: is (natural) science about everything that _is_, or about
> everything that is known ?
>
> best wishes,
> Boris Steipe
>
> +---Dr. Boris Steipe------------<steipe@LMB.uni-muenchen.de>---+
> | Genzentrum |
> | Feodor-Lynen Str. 25 Tel +49 (0)89 74017-417 |
> | 81377 Muenchen, Germany Fax -448 |
> +---<http://www.LMB.uni-muenchen.de/users/steipe/boris.html>---+
if it is but is not known what difference does it make to us until it is
discovered?
respectfully,
Don