"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
| Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 29 2007,21:42) | | Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 29 2007,22:31) | | Therefore, any viewpoint that limits itself exclusively to trying to answer them, simply cannot be in conflict with science, since science doesn't have diddley to say about answering those questions. |
That said, we can operationalize the classification of kinds of "mate selection processes," empirically investigate the success rates of each sort of process, and thereby offer (by scientific means) "second order" assistance with the decision process: not conclusions, but help with selection of the process by which conclusions are attained.
Surely that is squat, if not diddly. |
OK, I'll take squat. 
Of course, first you have to define "success". As I've already noted, everyone will have his or her own definition of that. So we're right back to the very same problem we've had all along --- how can science determine whose definition of "success" is the proper one to measure and apply?
Can science (or logic, or reason, or rationality, or kohlinar) help us improve our decision-making process? Sure. Can it provide more information to help make our our decision? Yep. Can it prompt us to consider alternative viewpoints or possibilities that we may not have considered before? You bet.
Can it answer the question? Not in a million years. Not any better than your grandmother's (non-rational, emotional, subjective) advice can.
--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
|
