From: Alexanian, Moorad (alexanian@uncw.edu)
Date: Wed Sep 17 2003 - 10:40:17 EDT
Evolution is more akin to forensic science than, say, physics. The word
science in "forensic science"---just as in "historical sciences"---means
that one does detective work using scientific instruments. It is
certainly not an experimental science since it deals with unique events.
It is the science that evolutionary theory uses that is experimental in
nature not evolutionary theory itself. It is common to ask "do you
believe in (macro) evolution?" Such types of questions are never asked
in physics. For instance, have you ever heard anyone say "do you
believe in relativity or quantum mechanics?" Are we, therefore, more in
the area of "faith" rather than conventional, unadulterated science?
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Hicks [mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:13 AM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: RFaussette@aol.com; allenroy@peoplepc.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Post-Empiricism Science: A little surprised
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 - 10:40:35 EDT