Pardon me for coming in rather late in the discussion, but I would like
help understanding why you say that science-religion cannot serve as a
bipolar construct. Are you sayin that this would not make an adequate
construct in the Kelly tradition? Couldn't we do a rep test and see that
someone had a personal construct that distinguished "science" from
"religion"? Or are you using the term "construct" in a different way?
What do you mean here, for example? I'm not an expert on Kelly, but this
doesn't sound like Kelly, to me:
> Some aspects of science and some aspects of religion may be construed
> on each pole of these three constructs. They are not bipolar unless one
> very clearly defines those aspects.
..Lois Shawver
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%