From Moderator

John has been a good friend to me, and I have tried to reciprocate. His relation with me is
to some degree like the relation of Science and Wittgenstein: he is an accomplished
biologist [but he does know a good bit about Wittgenstein]. I am highly focused on all
aspects of Wittgenstein and am an enthusiastic and interested reader of science. But our
main areas of experise are science for John and Wittgenstiein for me. If I am doubtful
about something in science, especially biological science, I turn to J to John and if there is
some uncertainty in something in Wittgenstein, We talk it over.

The working scientist and mathematician have tried to keep philosophy and religion] out
of their work since the Enlightenment. An unconscious philosophic bias may reside in any
particular science, but if unconscious it is also unacknowledged.

Wittgenstgein was not antiscience, except in what he thought philosophy should be. I
have come to think of Wittgestein more as an un-philosopher, a thinker, rather than a
philosopher as ordinarily understood.] As a matter of fact he appreciated solid science
and, as a logician, held it to high standards and criteria. He had his work and science hat
its own work, They were not to be confused. In fact they are often confused. I cant leave
without a quote from Witgenstein. I think he is being tactful here:

9. Asked whether philosophers have hitherto spoken nonsense, you could reply: no, they
have only failed to notice that they are using a word in quite different senses. In this
sense, if we say it's nonsense to say that one thing is identical to another, this needs
qualification, since if anyone says this with conviction, that at that moment he means
something by the word `identical' (perhaps `large'), but isn't aware that is using the word
with a different meaning. [Philosophical Grammar, part I, pages 55-6]

PARR