Brad

Comments below;

> A *big* question is about the nature of "science".  Is genuine
> science an engrossment with puzzle-solving about
> *objects* of experience, but that
> almost entirely overlooks or misunderstands the role of
> experience in the constitution of the object domains and the careers of
> their study (hermeneutics)?

Science does not have a singular definition - Studies in the philosophy of science
divide roughly into two types. The first which is foundational concerns the content
and structure of theories. The second deals with the relations of a theory one the
one hand to to the world/universe and to the theory-user on the other. One wide
ranging theory is that scienctific theories aim to account for phenomena (I  suspect
this is the view you hold) by proposing processes and structures that may not even be
accessible to observation. This is usually accepted as being at least 'true in the
first instance'.  In this case scientific activity is a research programme and to
accept a theory is to commit to the research program (paradigm etc).

> But students of the exact sciences are still not required to
> understand transcendental philosophy (at least we are beginning
> to teach engineering students *engineering ethics*!).

Usually beyond their area of interests, as for ethics well...

> I can't remember who it was who observed that,
> in the ancient cosmology, man may have been at the center of
> the universe, but he was at the bottom of the ontological heap:
> the sublunary sphere was the realm of corruption and decay, and
> sinful man was right at the center of it all in the exposure of his
> soul to God's eternal judgment and likely damnation.

A reasonable representation of the ongoing crisis of being human and the
inevitability of failure and death...

> I think we are still living with the "chilling" effects
> of Galileo's intimidation and capitulation ("science
> is about facts, not about values", etc.).

I have never been sure that we should apply Brecht's dramatic values to the lived
world - Brecht in life behaved sensibly like Galileo. Shortly after Galileo's time
science and scientists began to displace priests from the role of the jurist-priest,
with the resultant changes in political sovriegnty that we deal with reluctantly on a
day to day basis - would this have been any different if Galileo had resisted - I
think not.

>
> Albrecht Wellmer has an aptly titled book: _The
> Unfinished Project of Modernity_ (compare Latour's:
> _We Have Never Yet Really Been Modern_...).
>

Not familiar with this work - i'll have a look round - like the latour work however -
Serres is better, less romantic.

regards
sdv