ELRON, you wrote on Feb 22 1999,

Jacob, on your Introduction to Dynamic-Scientific Philosophy:
I would be especially interested on your thoughts on epistemology and how it forms the core of sound science.

Elron, I avoid writing as a philosopher, wishing to attract individuals who are not particularly interested in such branch of knowledge as strictly defined.
Even the term 'epistemology' may be new to many. Intending to introduce my ideas here at a Delphi Forum, I plan to post on many subjects, in the 'spirit' of the D-SL.
My approach to knowledge is based on Science, yet with a 'philosophic' prism, meaning, looking for wisdom in the interpretation of scientific findings. Science --by etymology-- refers to knowledge, yet by general acceptance is expected to be absolutely objective.
D-SP follows a new line of epistemology, opened by the impressive scientific advances of the last two decades, primarily in the study of mind processes. Please allow me to comment on the construction of your question.

Epistemology is not the "core of science," which axiomatically must be "sound." The core is the use of the scientific method, which should be applied in every area of human activities that demand accuracy. I pretend to delve in the future on many aspects of your vast question and on my present succint answer to it.

As I am sure you are well aware, Jacob, science --and in particular, physics-- is driven, for the most part, by empiricism, and --as the ideas in empiricism evolve, so does our interpretation of science.

As I understand it, empiricism refers to the information obtained through the senses, tuned to gather knowledge, by analyzing the information so -perceptually-- collected. The derivatives, positivism and logical empiricism, I see as making even stricter the area limits of perceptual information.
A time arrived when thinkers decided that language --the herald of the human mind's highest manifestation, which is thinking (and even more, "meta-thinking") -- should be the only reliable area of philosophical musings (Analytic-Linguistic Philosophy). Obviously, I'm in accord on the fundamental significance of language, yet I do not limit the D-SP's turf to it.
I believe that the sciences have been defined accurately: They comprise the Natural (as present in nature) and the Applied (technology being their most outstanding instrument). There are also the Artificial (man-made sciences), an otstanding representative being Computer Science.
Science has been defined as the application of rigurous methods for the discovery of Nature's secrets. Positive, reproducibly results are accepted as FACTS. Negative results should be seen as dubious, as I demonstrated when doing medical research.
As for your emphasis on Physics, I should emphasize even more: PHYSICS IS EVERYTHING. All that exists is an extensive and ever-evolving footnote to physics. And MATHEMATICS, which is not a science, constitutes the core of physics. The more mathematics, the more 'exact' a natural science. The more technology, the less 'art' an applied science. Physics, when strictly understood as the summum of the Universal Laws, has advanced by scientific means. "Nature" is the most astounding and sensually percepted creation of the Physical Laws. (html://www.oocities.org/`ghitis/INTERDIALOG-NATURE.html/)

In a sense, I am confused by your trinity of great mental constructs: theology, philosophy, and science. I am not really sure how you separate them so neatly, since science and theology depend so heavily on philosophy.

Theology deals with abstruse, non-alethic, non-provable, strictly subjective beliefs, which are mental constructs incapable of being studied by methods accepted by the majority of educated people. It is, therefore, one of the areas of human interest, and very definable as such one. Science is a very definable, well understood, very unique too, area of human interest. It conforms the underpinnings of man's development as the most rational organism.
Science is the motor of what is widely recognized as progress. There is a positive correlation between scientific development of geographical areas and what is widely accepted as living standards.

All the in-between the former two areas of human interest represent the subject proper of Philosophy, as defined by the DS-P. This does not exclude the former two as grist for philosophical undertakings. In fact, philosophy itself is also its subject. This latter situation I would call 'meta-philosophy,' following the same line of discourse that made me call 'meta-thinking' the process of thinking about thinking.
But the D-SP is mostly interested in explaining 'philosophical' --existing, demonstrable-- entities that receive support by scientific FACTS. Among them, the specially relevant: Mind and Thinking. I would be inclined to be sharper in my definition, by stating that there is some measure of INTUITION in the D-SP way of explaining the world. I intend to bring material on an attempt to explain intuition in a scientific context.

In fact, Jacob, I would venture to say that Philosophy is the root of our investigations into the nature of reality.

Elron, you are entering the realm of terminology. To me, reality is what can be perceived by the senses, whether unaided or supported by instruments.

As science and philosophy progress, the lines become even harder to draw.

Science, as it progressed, bit out pieces of former philosophical food. Classical philosophies cannot 'progress': they have remained static. I consider the D-SP as the only philosophy that will progress --and will eventually be incorporated as integral part of Science. That is why I consider it "The Philosophy For All The Centuries."

Is philosophy really, in a sense, the most basic form of science, as Quine might have us believe?

This is playing with terms of thinking. Quine states that 'Being' is anything that exists or can be conceived by man's mind. I would like to add that thought has not been devoted to separating 'being' from 'existing.'...