In article <3A5E4252.525566D7 at research.bell-labs.com>,
Ken Cox <kcc at lucent.com> wrote:
>zOz wrote:
>> You cannot take serious
>> panpsychism despite the fact that the most revolutionary and
>> important (by his influence on other scientists) founder of
>> modern science, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) was a panpsychist.
>>Amount of modern science that originated with Kepler's
>panpsychist beliefs: 0
>>Amount of modern science that originated from Kepler when he
>was not trying to apply his panpsychist beliefs: more than 0.
>>>This is not an uncommon thing, by the way. Newton's alchemy
>went nohwere;
Be fair. The alchemy didn't hurt him in getting the job as
Master of the Royal Mint.
>his physics and optics founded new fields.
and the calculus went a fair way, too. (Didn't Newton invent
the calulus of variations overnight, to solve what was essentially
a dinner-table puzzle? or is that academic legend?)
>The
>creationists on talk.origins often refer to various historical
>scientists, such as Newton or Kelvin, as creationists, but in
>all cases their scientific work was not based on creationism.
