From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Wed Sep 17 2003 - 10:12:52 EDT
Does that mean that evolution is not a science? I
have not heard of any predictive aspects of it.
"Alexanian, Moorad" wrote:
> Ancients used to explain eclipses and why the
> sun rises but could not make predictions. The
> essence of a scientific theory is the ability to
> make predictions and not merely give
> explanations, which is pure phenomenology.
>
> Moorad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf
> Of RFaussette@aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 7:39 AM
> To: allenroy@peoplepc.com
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Post-Empiricism Science: A little
> surprised
>
> In a message dated 9/17/03 1:46:31 AM Eastern
> Daylight Time, allenroy@peoplepc.com writes:
>
>
>
> The evolutionary paradigm is just as religious
> and sacred as a Creationary
> paradigm. The only difference is that the
> evolutionary paradigm is based upon
> and accepted by blind faith. It is blind
> because it cannot be confirmed by
> anyone who could know.
>
> T. Kuhn wrote that the strength of a hypothesis
> is in its explanatory value. The explanatory
> value of evolutionary theory is so strong and
> there is so much evidence for it that to dispute
> it at this point is to dig your head in the
> sand.
>
> "If a paradigm is ever to triumph it must gain
> some first supporters, men who will develop it
> to
> the point where hard headed arguments can be
> produced and multiplied. And even those
> arguments when they come are not individually
> decisive.
>
> Because scientists are reasonable men, one or
> another argument will ultimately persuade many
> of them. But there is no single argument that
> can or should persuade them all. Rather than a
> single group conversion, what occurs is an
> increasing shift in the distribution of
> professional
> allegiances.
>
> At the start, a new candidate for paradigm may
> have few supporters, and on occasion the
> supporters' motives may be suspect.
> Nevertheless, if they are competent, they will
> improve it,
> explore its possibilities and show what it would
> be like to belong to the community guided by
> it. And as that goes on, if the paradigm is one
> destined to win its fight, the number and
> strength of the professional arguments in its
> favor will increase.
>
> More scientists will then be converted and the
> exploration of the new paradigm will go on.
> Gradually the number of experiments,
> instruments, articles and books based upon the
> paradigm will multiply. Still more men,
> convinced of the new view's fruitfulness will
> adopt the
> new mode of practicing normal science, until at
> last only a few elderly hold-outs remain.
>
> Though the historian can always find men,
> Priestley, for instance, who were unreasonable
> to
> resist for as long as they did, he will not find
> a point at which resistance becomes illogical or
>
> unscientific. At most he may wish to say that
> the man who continues to resist after his whole
> profession has been converted has ipso facto
> ceased to be a scientist."
>
> The Structure of
> Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S. Kuhns
> Chapter:
> Resolution of Revolutions
>
> rich faussette
>
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 17 2003 - 10:12:20 EDT