Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Is science a religion?

[Jason Youngquist <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> I disagree with science as a "religion" for the most part. Perhaps if
> someone blindly accepts what is handed down from the scientists on high
> without question, then science may be --that-- person's religion. The
> scientific process, by definition, precludes this.
	Yes, but how was the "scientific process" developed or how did
it "evolve" into what it is today?  How do scientists come up with the
hypotheses they want to test?  Through "logic", "intution", or some other
way?

What were the first "branches" of science?  It seems every few
decades or so we "discover" these new branches/"lenses" of science....ie.
behavorial genetics, behavorial finance, computer science, neural
networks, chaos theory, quantum mechanics, artificial intelligence,
cognative psychology, chemical engieering, industrial engineering,
nuerobiology, biophysics, radiology, nuclear medicine, oncology, etc.

I'm asking these questions, because I unfortunately don't know much about
the history of science.

Thanks.
Jason Youngquist
EMAIL:PROTECTED
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion