the gods

[bpj at netg.se]

At 22:37 1.6.1997, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:

>i don't think reductionism, according to which one science explains the
>axiomas, thoerical terms and basic fenomena of another, is a tenable point of
>view. on the contrary: i agree with Peter Winch ('The idea of a Social Science
>- Routl & Kegan Paul 1958): there's a fundamental difference between
>object-sciences and social-sciences. i think there is an equally fundamental
>difference between those two and linguistic sciences like philogy and
>semiology.
>
>i had antropology, philology and semiology in mind when i defended the right
>of science to investigate religious phenomena and texsts.
>

Just for the record this expresses my view adequately too. Thanks for this
great formulation, Erik!

Philip