Re: Teach the Controversy

From: pearson@panam1.panam.edu
Date: Tue Aug 08 2000 - 23:25:20 EDT

  • Next message: billwald@juno.com: "Re: Teach the Controversy"

    On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Susan Brassfield wrote:

    > > One small bit of editing by the Kansas board has been overlooked. The
    > >board changed the definition of science from "the search for natural
    > >explanations" the wording preferred by the National Academy of
    > >Sciences to the search for logical explanations.
     
    > the search for logical explanations is *philosophy* the search for natural
    > explanations is *science*. Logic floats on premises. Something that seems
    > perfectly logical may not be the case. (All men must die. Socrates is a
    > woman. Therefore Socrates will never die.)

    Susan,

    As a philosopher, and emphatically not a working scientist, allow me to make
    two comments.

    Your "perfectly logical" example above is perfectly invalid. Your first
    premise is "All men [p] must die [q]," which is equivalent to "All p are
    q." Then your second premise is "Socrates [r] is a woman [s]," which is
    equivalent to "All r is s." You now have four terms in your syllogism,
    meaning that you cannot derive any conclusion at all; in fact, you have no
    coherent argument whatsoever. You should have stopped with your
    observation that logic floats on premises.

    But this is a quibble. I agree wholeheartedly with your substantive
    point.

    By far, the most puzzling aspect to me of the entire Kansas curriculum
    proposal was this change from "natural explanations" to "logical
    explanations." Anyone who thinks scientific explanation involves, at some
    point, observation and experiment -- experiential contact with the
    external world -- has to be aghast at this shift. On the other hand, if
    someone believes scientific explanation consists in the manipulation of
    the syntactical relations between formal symbols, they are likely to be
    pleased with the change in wording. Logic has no empirical content
    whatsoever; I can provide all sorts of logically valid accounts that are
    utterly false when applied to the natural world. Logic is a kind of
    language game -- a set of rules for playing with abstract symbols (and
    yes, I have to teach the stuff each semester). Is this really what science
    does? Not even in Kansas, I hope.

    Tom Pearson
    ________________________________________________________________
    ________________________________________________________________

    Thomas D. Pearson
    Department of History & Philosophy
    The University of Texas-Pan American
    Edinburg, Texas
    e-mail: pearson@panam1.panam.edu



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 08 2000 - 23:28:22 EDT