By Matt Kartchner

Editor:

I appreciate Daniel Gorrell’s April 19 remarks on my April 18 letter to the editor. I don’t agree with his characterization of my thoughts, but, in fairness, the editor garbled them with a grammatical error.

I questioned where one gets the premises of one’s beliefs, scientific or otherwise. It is ironic to me that some scientists who disdain moral and religious premises as inferior still seem to cling to mystical assumptions themselves?namely, a sense of awe and wonder.

I suspect that the scientific process?which I think has enriched our lives?has limitations.

Gorrell could apply a little skepticism to his own argument. He begins by asserting that, “Wonder comes about in only two situations.” I wonder, does it? Why should it? Perhaps there are other situations we aren’t aware of in which it could come about?

I wonder if such an assertion would come from a closed mind?

I think that the tenor of the rest of the argument, which seems loosely structured on this assertion, has the tenor of a Sunday-school lesson.

Matt Kartchner

Senior, Economics