Re: MN - limitation of science or limitation on reality? (was evolution archive list)
Susan Brassfield (susan-brassfield@ou.edu)
Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:14:41 -0600>Reflectorites
>
>
>On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:15:29 -0700, Chris Cogan wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Implicit in Susan's remark is another: Scientific method is not suited to
>>the study of divine feet in the door. Scientific method uses a process of
>>conjecture and refutation by empirical test of implications. What test would
>>you propose based on the presence of a divine foot in the door in the midst
>>of a theory of mechanics (say)? The scientist wants theories that imply
>>things like: "If we measure this quantity, and it does NOT have THIS value,
>>then the theory is false." Or: "If we look in places where thus and so
>>conditions are met, we will find fossilized whatsits." What similar test of
>>a divine foot would you propose?
Steve Jones Wrote:
>The point is that Lewontin would not even allow the Divine Foot in the door
>*no matter* what the "test" was. He (and all materialist-naturalists) rule out
>the "Divine foot" *absolutely* no matter what the evidence for it is. As
>Johnson comments on this:
what you and Johnson seem to omit in this discussion is that there is no
evidence at all for "divine feet. What *is* the evidence? Since you say "no
matter what the evidence for it is" you seem to imply that you (or Johnson)
have some. Can you share a few tidbits?
Susan
-----------
Life is short, but it's also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/