On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:58:22 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , huntres23
says...

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:47:20 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , huntres23
says...

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:22:19 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , huntres23
says...

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:52:20 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
...
It's not very helpful to one's understanding of the world of knowledge
to trap oneself in instrumentalist models of science. Historically,
strict insrumentalism is a fairly recent phenomenon, and it reflects a
narrowing, not an expansion, of understanding. And it's only one
aspect of science, which applies particularly to the physical
sciences.
Ed Huntress

Here we have envious 'scientists' who can't produce rigorous and verifiable
mathematical models attempting to downgrade the ones who can.

jsw

Here we have self-important physical scientists, who have excellent
vocational training but not much of what one could call an education,
thinking that science starts and stops at their doorstep.

Lemme guess, your degree is in one of the "social sciences".

Nope. It was more like vocational training.

Well, now I know I can safely discount your opinion in the matter.

Right. My degree is as narrow and career-oriented as that of any
engineer. Discount them while you're at it.

Nope, just you.

So far, you're only proving my point about the narrow and smug
attitude of many instumentalists.

Regarding engineering, this is also the reason I got out of it. There
are few college programs that are narrower or that have less allowance
for electives in fields other than engineering itself and the
peripheral prerequisites and so on. Although the result is a very high
level of vocational training, the education of an engineer depends
mostly on how successful he is at learning things outside of his
college program.

Some do, some don't. The ones who don't tend to see everything through
that filter, and to be very defensive about it.

--
Ed Huntress

--
Ed Huntress