Summary (of "Question", "braHmavid=Krishna?" series of mails) (fwd)

[Naresh P. Cuntoor]

>
> > Not all theories come before discovery. So the discovery of a particle
> > will cause scientists to churn out papers by the dozen, irrespective of
> > any pre-existing theories.
> >
> Naresh, you have missed the point of what I said. The reason scientists are
> prepared to spend time and effort investigating fundamental particles and not
> poltergeists is that there is a pre-established theoretical framework
> (quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics) within which to design
> experiments and interpret their results, No such framework exists for

(Quantum does seem to be today's buzzword, doesn't it?!) .. At the risk
of going totally off-track, I just want to point out that all these
theories
in science had a beginning.. its not like quantum theory is anAdi now, is
it? So if the theoretical framework isn't present, then scientists go
about finding one.


> questionable in some way. Much of what he has said I regard as true and
> insightful ( for example his idea of science being an "exploration of maya").
> In any case the discussion he has engendered is very valuable as it has

which brings me to the same question, why this obsession with tying
together science and religion? why not understand them to be operating
under different frames of reference?