Bertvan:
>>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.
>Steve C:
>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?
Hi Steve:
Maybe science should be defined by the methods used. Philosophy and
religion once passed for science - before religions and philosophy acquired a
tendency to become doctrines. Now I fear some scientific theories have
become doctrines rather than attempts to describe reality. Biochemistry,
micro-biology and genetics have all made progress. However, many
evolutionary biologists are still defending "random mutation and natural
selection", a concept articulated 130 years ago. In many cases it is not the
science they are defending, but the underlying philosophical assumption,
materialism. Philosophical assumptions might be difficult to investigate
scientifically, they are still part of reality, and any description of
reality will only be as valid as its underlying philosophical assumptions.
History, philosophy, religion, and literature are all attempts to investigate
reality, but so far have eluded precise methods of investigation, but there
have been attempts to investigate all of them scientifically.
>Steve C:
>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?
Bertvan:
IMHO, any sincere investigation of reality is science. As you point out
investigating astrology is science; doing astrology is not. Trying to
discover what happened during the history of life is science; searching for
evidence to promote Darwinism is not.
>Steve C:
>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?
Bertvan:
What aspects of reality would you be investigating or trying to describe when
cooking or playing football?
>Steve C:
>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?
Bertvan:
If theology is defining doctrine, it is not science. If theology were a
scientific investigation of the truth of any particular doctrine, it would be
science. Most religious doctrines would be difficult to investigate
scientifically, but evidence might be found for some concepts. The
existence of free will, love and altruism, for instance. I doubt it would
be worth anyone's effort. Theology is an emotional issue and no amount of
evidence would convince anyone, neither the believers nor the non believers.
>>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.
>Steve C:
>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?
Bertvan:
No. I would argue there is only one reality. We understand some aspects of
reality better than others. Is the nature of light, gravity or "fields"
part of reality? Is quantum non-determinism part of reality? Is love part
of reality? Is consciousness part of reality? Materialists might call
everything they can't weigh or measure "metaphysical", but that idea might
turn out to be a materialist "god of the gaps".
I enjoy such non-acrimonious discussions, Steve, and so far this has been
delightful
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 08 2000 - 18:25:09 EDT