RE: virus: The other

Robin Faichney (
Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:34:58 -0000

> From: Wade T.Smith[]
> >By the way, Wade, don't you think definition should
> >come before verification - or would that entail
> >acknowledging a role for philosophy?
> Hmmm. No. I am quite sure something could be verified without any
> status
> definitionally. I do not need a definition of a wound to see the
> blood.
But you need to be clear about blood before
you can distinguish it from pus/whatever,
don't you? How can you be sure of finding
something if you don't know what you're
looking for?

> I am saying that Philosophy _does_ need
> definitions first, which _is_ its role perhaps.
Philosophy is about clarity in thinking, which
is absolutely essential for the development of
testable hypotheses, without which science
could not exist. Science depends on
philosophy, while philosophy does not depend
on science. (Which is not to say that
philosophy is "better", whatever that would
mean, just that it comes first.)

> I acknowledge that, I am
> just saying it has no objective, evidential significance.
You mean it's not science? I think we know

> And I certainly
> agree it possesses a valid historical perspective.
Thank you!

> Besides, it's fun, ain't it?
Yes indeedy.