Just typical. Last week I derided David Coulthard as a “dawdling old geezer”, then he goes and puts in a decent performance at the season finale in Japan. The scotsman led and out-paced Finnish teammate Kimi Raikkonen (one of the sport’s rising stars) for most of the race, but let the Finn take second position so as to increase his chances of lifting the driver’s title. Nonetheless, I’m sticking by my original statement.
Modern science disclaims any intention of understanding the hidden nature of things; its philosophy condemns any such endeavour as vague, misleading and altogether unscientific.…But I refuse to heed this warning. I agree that the process of understanding leads beyond - indeed far beyond - what a strict empiricism regards as the domain of legitimate knowledge; but I reject such an empiricism. If consistently applied, it would discredit any knowledge whatever and it can be upheld only by allowing it to remain inconsistent. It is permitted this inconsistency because its ruthless mutilation of human experience lends it such a high reputation for scientific severity, that its prestige overrides the defensiveness of its own foundations. Our acknowledgement of understanding as a valid form of knowing will go a long way towards liberating our minds from this violent and inefficient despotism. by casino
All content copyright © 2002 of Ryan Carter
