At 03:04 PM 05/08/2000 -0400, Bertvan@aol.com wrote:
> >Steve C:
>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.
>
>Bertvan:
>First, I don't "take science to task for not including ID". I criticize
>biology for the concerted efforts by Darwinists to exclude ID.
I don't understand how you distinguish the premise underlying the first
sentence from the premise underlying the second. They seem quite
similar. But I am not interested in quibbling over the use of words, just
ideas.
>I believe any
>scientist should feel free to use any approach he chooses, mechanistic
>determinism, ID, or whatever. Those working under assumptions more closely
>corresponding to reality will probably achieve the greater results - in the
>long run.
This begs the question of what you consider to be science. From this it
sounds like you would consider any pursuit to be science. From this it
also sounds like you define science by the methods used. Let me simplify
the issue, can you tell me what you would NOT consider to be science and why?
>Bertvan:
>I wouldn't limit science. Science should be free to investigate astrology,
>religion, psychology or anything else.
Surely there is something in your mind by which science is differentiated
from nonscience. Investigating astrology is not the same thing as doing
astrology. But are both of these pursuits science? Are there truly no
limits to what constitutes science?
I go back to my earlier analogies, I use scientific methods when I cook,
but is that science? I used to play football, and can assure you that we
used scientific methods to plan plays against certain defenses, but I would
not call this science, would you?
>"Dislike" doesn't describe my
>attitude toward any of them. I'm simply not impressed with results so far
>achieved. I can even think of ways to try to scientifically investigate
>religion,
Ok, but using the scientific method to investigate religion, does that make
it science? Or would this sort of exercise belong to another discipline,
also concerned about investigating reality? Say, theology?
> >Steve C:
> >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.
>
>Bertvan:
>I have no problem with either materialism or design in science. Both should
>be included in the debate. Neither should be excluded. It is true that I
>do not favor materialism. I, personally, regard it as an inadequate
>description of reality.
So, you keep returning to describing reality as a definition of science. I
submit that there are different types of reality. Some physical, other
metaphysical. Would you agree with this?
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 - 15:40:36 EDT