cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing in the real world is even quantifiable.

Sure it is. Are you alive or dead?
Science doesn't often recognize the grey state, or at least, doesn't seem to, but there are underlying principles like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that it does recognize... but in that recognition, it still manages to quantify them - you know where the electron is, or you know where it is going to be - but not both.

> You can't measure the lenght of a river because
> you can define it.

Actually, you can define it, and lengths of rivers are available on the internet. Including how that length was arrived at.

If it ever became possible to
> define it then it would be constantly changing in
> unmeasureable ways.

Yep, which is why they are often re-evaluating courses of rivers etc. Luckily most of those changes (in important things) are slow.

You can use a thermometer to
> see the average molecular excitation of the air in
> a given place but this is constantly changing and
> relevent only to that specific place.

Well, actually, a thermometer is a pretty good measurement (quantification) of the heat energy in the air at a place and time.
Yep, a fact, in order to be a fact, has to be pretty specific, doesn't it?

It's of
> im[portance only to those who are in that place

Err not. Data collection is the first priority of science. Observe is the first step of the Scientific Method...

> and their comfort is dictated by things that are
> much different than just the temperature. A 90
> degree dat in September is entirely different than
> a 90 degree day in July. Wind, sun, humidity, and
> shade can all be more important than temperature.
> Below the thermometer may lie a cave at a more
> comfortable 52 degrees or a heated room.

Absolutely agreed. But what relevance does the cave have to the thermometer reading??

>
> Science is to a large extent the application of
> human knowledge to extend that knowledge.

Hmm really? I thought it was asking questions and testing answers.

These
> are real world things. We are not the semi-gods
> imagined by 19th century scientists but real world
> animals who always have to answer to mother
> nature.

We're closer than you think to those semi-gods. Heck, we can even turn lead into gold (using a cyclotron) amongst other things. We've harnessed the power of the atom to create our own suns on earth (however briefly). Yes, we have to answer to Mother Nature in restrictions, but we're pushing those limits every day.

We don't gety a pass because we're smart
> or cute and if our reach exceeds our grasp we can
> quickly get cut off.
"A Man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" - Heinlein or Sagan
We get a pass because we ask questions. Step over a line you didn't know was there and get cut off, yes... then others identify the line and the parameters of it...

"Knowledge" is also a real
> world thing. It too must answer to reality.

Knowledge is *not* a real world thing. It has no concrete value. It has no EXISTENCE in the MATERIAL world. What you KNOW isn't what REALITY simply IS.
Although you can argue that what we know is substantiated in the quantum mechanical processes of our brain... But that isn't proven yet, so as far as we... know what we know isn't a concrete material thing, and thus is NOT part of reality.


>
> Intuitive understanding of the world is the
> natural way of man
Nope. *Empirical* understanding is the natural way of man to understand his world.
I do this, that does that.
Throw rock, tree shows damage.
Hit enemy hard, enemy isn't enemy anymore.
Cause & Effect - that's natural. Check out Bonobo Apes & tool usage sometime

though education often directs
> individuals to nearly pure logic and reason.
Education does?? No, reason leads to logic which is how philosophy got started late in homo sapiens existence... reason recognized the cause & effect relations and began to ask *why*

It
> really takes all kinds but most breakthroughs will
> be the result of intuitive leaps made by both
> those who think intuitively and those who employ
> mainly logic forever.

Yep - people who use both or can apply both. People both in the singular & the plural. So wait, are you actually agreeing with me now?? I had thought you were disagreeing!

Intuitive thinkers are far
> more likely to make practical breakthroughs while
> logical thinkers are more likely to make
> theoretical ones. But most breakthroughs of all
> types are the result of intuition. All
> breakthroughs are just ideas.

Now here I know we disagree... your dreamers (intuitives) will almost never make a *practical* breakthrough, if you define 'practical' as useful or functional. They will make the most breakthroughs in theoretical work and/or the 'what if' scenarios... but your logic applicators (grunts as I called them) are the ones who will test, retest, design, and implement.

Therein we're talking about the shift from a theoretical physicist to an engineer.
Both are scientists in their own way... both will make breakthroughs. The first will make a new theoretical breakthrough (think Einstein), but the latter will be the one to take the abstract knowledge and find a way to apply it in the *real world*



And yes, I'm a bit passionate about this subject. I don't think either approach should be neglected, but rather integrated and used at the same time.
That's the reason I loved star trek first generation and despised everything after... First Gen had the intiricate combination of Spock (Logic & Reason), Kirk (intuition & reason), and Bones (pure intuition and emotion)... IDIC.