We felt the following posting on the Deanic/traditionalist approach to "science" might be of interest ot our readers: While some people have imagined that we "reject science" that has never been true. What we reject is the purely arbitrary dogma that material observations and mental reflection thereon are our only source of knowledge. Only one civilization has ever believed that - the post 17th-century European culture, which by military and economic force, and also the "persuasion of success", has expanded to the point where it covers most of the globe and many people simply cannot imagine other ways of thinking. Material science, however, can and does provide valuable information. It would do a far better job if (as in the Motherland) it were allied with traditional thought instead of having staged an arrogant "revolution" against it. But even in its current ideologically compromised state it is capable of providing valuable information. Honored Kohime-chei's reply here illustrates one important point: that where spiritual or metaphysical truth conflicts with the speculations of material science, the former must take precedence. Why? Because material observations can be flawed, and so can the speculations based on them, whereas eternal principles cannot be flawed. Does this mean that any argument based on Principle instantly trumps any material-scientific hypothesis? No, for several reasons of which I adduce two: 1. In many cases the two do not overlap and each should be regarded as more proficient in its own domain. 2. While eternal Principles cannot be wrong, our application of them can be. So while we are correct to say material speculation z is incorrect if it contradicts eternal principle a, we still need to discuss whether such a contradiction actually exists. However the fact that Principle must take primacy is inalterable, and attempts to bring traditional teachings "into line with science" are contemptibly weak-minded. We recall (among countless examples) a translation of an ancient Sanskrit text in which the term used to describe the beginning of manifestation is rendered "the Big Bang". To mix up principial Truth with a currently popularized theory which may or may not outlast this century is an absurdity, and one that completely inverts the proper relation of unchanging Principle to temporal speculation.