At 12:01 AM 12/8/96 -0800, Randy Landrum described his philosophy of science
as follows:
>I do...believe that science is the systematized knowledge
>derived from observation. It is a branch of knowledge, esp. one that
>systematizes facts, principles, and methods. According to my understanding
>evolution does not fit that definition.
>
>In my own perception I believe science to be the pursuit of truth without
>religion belief, or agenda.=20
I submit that this represents an archaic philosophy of science that was
first proposed by Bacon and quickly rejected by philosophers and scientists
who followed (especially Descartes). However, this Baconian Inductivist
view of science permeates the philosophy of creationists, especially those
at the ICR. What follows is an excerpt from a paper I wrote and presented
at a local forum last year. The title of the section quoted is, HOW DOES
CREATIONISM VIEW SCIENCE?
The late medieval period ushered an increasing emphasis on method in
natural philosophy that first developed into what is called rational
inductivism. Inductive logic has its origins with Aristotle, but it was
Francis Bacon who took this to the extreme and developed a new
approach to science called eliminative or Baconian Inductivism.
The requirements of this new method of natural philosophy were as
follows (11):
1. Science is completely RATIONAL.
In other words, when done properly, science completely
eliminates human bias and subjectivism.
2. The scientific process is completely EMPIRICAL.
It only concerns itself with observational data that are neutral
and universally shared between different observers.
3. Science is completely OBJECTIVE.
The results one arrives at are dictated only by nature.
So, the way that science is to be done, according to Bacon, is for a
completely rational observer to record observational data in some
purely objective manner, totally free from all prejudices and having no
prior preference concerning what theory should be correct. Data
collected in such an objective manner are then organized by the
logical process of induction, again without the influence of any
presuppositions. From this, correct generalizations will emerge out of
the organized data.
[note: this is basically the definition of science that Randy gave and that
I quoted above]
This means that
1. any preselection of the data that are recorded represents an
unacceptable bias and
2. to make an hypothesis, is to inappropriately inject
subjectivism into the method.
This view of science is seriously inadequate for three reasons:
1. First, data are not simply collected as they come. This would
result in a collection of bits of information largely unrelated and
irrelevant to whatever is being studied. Even if such data were
collected, it still requires one to sort the relevant from the
irrelevant which requires some preconceived notion about the
topic of study. In reality, data collection is, in fact, guided by an
a priori hypothesis and data are not collected in the absence of
all presuppositions.
2. Second, data are not self-organizing. Rather, data are
categorized and organized according to an a priori theory.
3. Finally, the logical inductive step is impossible because the
theories and explanatory principles that arise from science are
the products of human insight and creativity and are not simply
the logical results of data. It takes imagination in order to go
from a body of data to a theoretical account of that data.
So, contrary to the Baconian inductivist view, when scientists collect
data, we do so with certain presuppositions about what data are likely
to be relevant and irrelevant to the particular study. When scientists
organize data, it is done according to previously conceived theories
about how the data should fit together. Finally, conclusions that we
make from empirical data are not simply the logical consequences of
the data. Rather, they are the results of creative insights on the part
of the observer.
With this background, let us now look at the how creationists view the
scientific method.=20
[clip]
Simply stated, the classical creationist position holds that the
acceptance of uniformity in nature represents a philosophical
presupposition that is inherently anti-theistic. Furthermore, according
to creationists, since the uniformitarian view embodies a philosophical
presupposition. They claim that it is unscientific to hold such a
presupposition when doing science because this interjects an
unacceptable subjectivity into science. If this sounds suspiciously
close to the Baconian inductivist model of science, it is because
creationism defines science according to the Baconian view. In
numerous publications, the definition of science used by the Institute for
Creation Research=20
is as follows (12):
"A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected
body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts
systematically classified and more or less colligated by
being brought under general laws which include trustworthy
methods for the discovery of new truths within this domain."=7F
[again, this is very close to Randy's definition of science]
With this Baconian definition of science, creationists can point to the
fact that evolution is not a fact, but a theory, and since theories have
no place in this inductivist view of science, creationists argue that
evolution is not science. But they use an archaic Baconian version of
science that, as I explained above, is really unworkable.
[clip]
Food for thought?
Steve
____________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: =
608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: =
ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
____________________________________________________________