In a message dated 7/23/2000 6:51:28 PM, dfsiemensjr@juno.com writes:
<< I make no assumptions about a straight line rise. I know too much history
to assume that. There will be interpretations which work but which are
mistaken, and some mistakes that won't work. I sometimes feel that "got
on his horse and rode off madly in all directions" fits the situation all
to closely. I am also aware that we cannot anticipate breakthroughs. When
I took course in biology, nobody anticipated DNA, RNA, the genetic code,
the internal structure of the cell, or the techniques which allow
visualization of a lot of this. I am simply noting that we now have a
basis for understanding the "mechanisms" of cellular life and organism
development. We didn't have them before.>>
Dave,
You DO have a straight-line concept of science. You look to the past, and
assume that discoveries will continue in the future as they have in the past.
Riding off in all directions fits the early stages of scientific discovery
and what happens when a scientific paradigm is confronted with numerous
intransigent anomalies, as Kuhn pointed out. You seem to imply that such
riding will continue indefinitely, or until final answers are attained.
I merely suggested there is another model to consider, a hypothesis, if you
will, namely, that the overall progress of science will follow an S-shaped
trajectory, and that eventually it will come to a situation when to advance
to the next step in discovery requires more resources than society is willing
to commit, or science is faced with impenetrable mystery in the natural
order. The search for extraterrestrial intelligent life may be a case in
point. While single-celled bacterial life may be common in the universe, as
Brownlee and Ward suggest in their book, RARE EARTH, intelligent life may
be rare indeed. Discovering the latter may require instruments that are
technologically beyond human capacity or beyond what society is willing to
pay for. Communicating with such beings is even more daunting. The curve of
discovery may flatten our before ever arriving at an answer.
As long as you continue to postpone making at least preliminary conclusions
about the limits of science and why we don't know what we would like to know,
you strike me as having a "science of the gaps" position. That position may
have worked in the past. There is no guarantee that it will hold in the
future.
(snip)
<<Mutation and selection? No. There has at least to be duplication,
recombination and other factors. Are they sufficient? I don't know. I
suspect that the specialists in the area don't yet know. New discoveries
may produce totally unexpected insights. However, I will say dogmatically
that all scientific explanation will be in terms of natural events, just
as the scientific explanation of the Big Bang can only work back as far
as 10^-43 sec after the event. Calling the Big Bang "creation" is outside
of the scientific explanation. In the biological area, if the final
result is that there is no natural explanation, interjecting "miracle" is
not a part of the scientific discipline.>>
Of course, scientific explanation will be in terms of natural events--by
definition. The question is, will our complete understanding of natural
events be found in science. I hold to a provisional no. I hold that there
are phenomena that can be identified or inferred by scientific means of
observation and logic, whose complete explanation tails out beyond science,
and requires theological of philosophical explanation. The Big Bang is a
case in point. Calling it "creation" may be unscientific, as you rightly
point out, but is essential if the full meaning and significance of the
scientific discovery is to be attained. What do you have, if you only have
the Big Bang?
Peace,
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 07:47:37 EDT