[Fwd: Re: constructs, science and religion]

Gary Blanchard (garyb@pics.com)
Fri, 14 Jun 1996 23:39:03 -0700

X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Message-ID: <31C22329.360B@pics.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 19:42:49 -0700
From: Gary Blanchard <garyb@pics.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael McKee <mckee@olympus.net>
Subject: Re: constructs, science and religion
References: <199606141826.LAA01172@olympus.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Michael-

As one of the instigators of this thread, let me welcome you to it.

My point in distinguishing between the domains of science and religion
was simply to note that:

-science is the name we give to the practices and
procedures which allow us to validate our claims about reality.
This allows us to proceed with more confidence and certainty of
effect, throughout our life, than we otherwise might.

-religion, on the other hand, is the name we give to practices
and procedures which cannot be validated, only believed. Hence to look
for the 'proof' of a given Commandment, for example, is by definition

I am mystified as to how anyone could disagree with the above, just in
terms of our everyday reality. And yet, apparently some of my colleagues
on this list are doing just that. Clearly I must have something to learn

My request is: can we keep it simple, and specify where this
assessment about the nature of reality is flawed, offbase, or incomplete?
With examples?

So, Mike, what do you say about this? Brian? Devi? Alessandra?
Lois? Tim? Bill? Lurking Others?

Then we can get back to the original question: Is Kellian
psychology science-based or belief-based (religion)?

After that, I will propose a more fundamental question: what must
one evidence in order to establish that they can operate as a
constructivist vs. an objectivist? Of what do those two ontologies
consist? Can one be both, simultaneously? Etc.

Best, Gary