At de Lange wrote:
> In fact, we do not have such a subject which reflects the
> whole of the physical (material world), living and unliving.
> In other words, we do not have a subject which reflects the
> whole of all the fields of natural studies. I believe that
> this lack of wholeness in the SUBJECT is a serious deficiency
> once we realise that wholeness is essential to the OBJECT nature.
Dear At:
I disagree. Yes we do, it is called philosophy. That' why Newton, Kepler
and Galileo were called philosophers.
When I went to school a few years ago, I asked one of my professors why I
had to study so many different subjects to a my Ph. D. The answer was
blunt: "because", he said, "you are getting a philosopher's degree".
And that's why we use the name "universities", because their education is
supposed to be universal and whole.
- Mike Beedle
Principal
Framework Technologies Inc.
http://www.fti-consulting.com
http://www.fti-consulting.com/users/beedlem/
--"Mike Beedle" <beedlem@fti-consulting.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>