From FLSilver@aol.com Thu Jun 1 20:00:29 1995 Return-Path: Received: from mx4.u.washington.edu by lists.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.05/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA15620; Thu, 1 Jun 95 20:00:28 -0700 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com by mx4.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.05/UW-NDC Revision: 2.31 ) id AA18007; Thu, 1 Jun 95 20:00:27 -0700 Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA299552019; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 23:00:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 23:00:19 -0400 From: FLSilver@aol.com Message-Id: <950601230018_84244615@aol.com> To: indknow@u.washington.edu Cc: flsilve@bentley.univnorthco.edu Subject: West Sci Not Monolithic June 1, 1995 Norman, Certainly a good point that "Western Science" is not monolithic. On the other hand, the appeal to evidence base, public and replicable methodology, public disclosure of findings, critical review, etc. have been in my experience the chief features to which supporters of "Western Science" point to establish its uniqueness. Often along with its uniqueness goes the statement, or at least the implication, that no approach or discipline without such features rightly deserves the term "science". What experience do you have that leads you to conclude that "Western Science" is not monolithic? Rick Silverman .