Hi Bertvan,
I've been tied up so am responding belatedly to your latest comments.
At 03:21 PM 05/03/2000 -0400, Bertvan@aol.com wrote:
>Steve C:
>Hi Betvan
> >n your earlier quote, you said that "Science is the process of observation
> >and accurate measurements." When questioned whether this was sufficient to
> >define science you altered your definition and said that science is "an
> >attempt to describe reality". In the first case your definition is based
> >on method and in the second it is based on subject matter (reality).
>
>Bertvan:
>Hi Steve,
>We might be able to agree on a definition of science, but I'm not sure we'd
>get everyone to agree. I'm not committed to any particular definition. I
>rarely use the word evolution because what I specifically question is "random
>mutation and natural selection as an explanation of macro evolution."
>Awkward, but I do all I can to make my position clear.
It is not necessary to get everyone to agree. I just want to know what you
think. You are quite willing to take science to task for not including ID,
but you are unwilling to commit to any definition of science. I think that
in this debate you have an intellectual responsibility to be able to define
what you are talking about.
If you can't say what science is, on what basis do you suggest that it
should include ID? Stated differently, what would you limit science
to? If you include ID as belonging to science, do you also include
astrology? Metaphysics? Religion? If you don't include these, why
not? How do you justify including ID, but not Darwinian biology or
psychology? Just because you don't like them is not a sufficient
reason. I do not like alternative medicine, but I argue that its claims
can indeed be addressed by science.
It is fair for us to expect logical consistency in your views. So please
help us out here and tell us where you draw the demarcation between science
and nonscience.
>Steve:
> >As you will see from these questions, the demarcation between science and
> >nonscience is tricky to describe. But this point of demarcation keeps
> >coming up in the debate over evolution and ID. I think that it is
> >important to clearly understand this issue and what one means by
> >"science". It is interesting that many people here want to strictly define
> >evolution before proceeding in the debate. I believe that it is more
> >important to define science before proceeding.
>
>Bertvan:
>That would be one sure way to silence critics -- insist that they agree upon
>a list of definitions before they are allowed to express skepticism. As I
>have stated repeatedly, I am skeptical of "random mutation and natural
>selection as an explanation of nature's complexity" - Darwinism!!! - no
>matter how you define anything. And I heartily applaud physics for
>attempting to move beyond materialism.
I am not asking that you accept any list of definitions. This has never
come up. But when people argue the merits of Darwinian biology and ID, the
basis for the debate is how they define science. This is central to the
various intellectual positions, but is rarely discussed openly.
So, here I simply ask that you exercise a consistently logical philosophy
of science in order to explain the basis of your problem with materialism
in science and your favoritism of ID in science. It quite fair for me to
ask how you define what science is when you claim to know what should be
included and excluded from science.
Cheers,
Steve
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Human Oncology and
Member, UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine
600 Highland Ave, K4/432
Madison, WI 53792
Office: (608) 263-9137
FAX: (608) 263-4226
ssclark@facstaff.widc.edu
http://www1.bocklabs.wisc.edu/profiles/Clark,Steven.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 08 2000 - 13:32:45 EDT