> The purpose of using the word "game" is
> to make a point -- or maybe two points. One is the idea that
> a set of rules apply -- the second is to point out that science findings are
> not to be taken any more seriously than other findings in other disciplines.
It seems to me that both these points lead to controversy - even
within mainstream science.
(a) the common set of rules. Most (if not all!) attempts
to state the rules lead to problems. This is particularly apparent
when considering (i) empirical science (which is concerned with
repeatability and the provision of descriptions/explanations in terms
of natural law) and (ii) historical science (which is concerned with
unique events and the provisions of explanations in terms of
causation). When the techniques/procedures/methods of these various
scientists are collated, the resulting set of rules is very
comprehensive and complex. In practice, there is a tendency to see
the rules of science from more limited perspectives - leading to some
scientists being excluded - hence the controversy.
(b) the "game" of science suggests that the findings of science are
not to be taken more seriously than the findings of any other
discipline. You are well aware of the way many leaders in the
scientific community are presenting science as THE way to find
answers to questions. Some say it is the only way. The use of the
word "game" seems to be highly subjective - a point of view among
many. But surely we want to lift the quality of arguent above points
of view. Furthermore, the inference in your comment is that all
disciplines are similarly involved in a "game". From a Christian
perspective, I would have thought that we ought to be developing a
more "realist" perspective on knowledge.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***