[Buddha-l] teaching creationism

[Lawrence K. Starner]

>Curt wrote:
>
> Maybe we could start using the phrase "experimental sciences" in a more
> deliberate and insistent way. The word "science" and its progenitors
> have been used for thousands of years to mean various things. And an
> argument - a very convincing one, in my opinion - can be made that there
> is every reason to treat "science" as a branch of, and therefore
> subservient to, Philosophy. But when we talk about a "scientific
> revolution" that occurred sometime in the 17th century we are really
> talking about "experimental science" - which also existed previously,
> but only in embryonic form, at best. Insisting on the word
> "experimental" pretty much closes the book on creationism in the
> "science" classroom - or rather the "experimental science" classroom.
> For sticklers we could add a footnote that "experimental" subsumes or
> somehow also implies "observational" sciences like Geology, Astronomy
> and Meteorology, which can apply and must be consistent with
> experimental results, but which study phenomena not always amenable to
> direct experimentation. And for those who are even more sticklish we
> could add one of those double dagger footnotes (I always liked those) to
> say that "verifiable" is also implied - because, after all, Buddhism is
> based on observation, but we wouldn't want it being taught in Chemistry
> classroom. Fortunately Buddhism is not verifiable. Hmmm - or is it?
> Dang, maybe this won't work after all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------

"Empirical science" is a phrase often used.  The results of Buddhist
meditation are only truly verifiable by oneself for certain.

-- Larry