Re: Cobb County

My responses below are in red.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Edward Hassertt
  To: George Murphy ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 12:09 AM
  Subject: Re: Cobb County

  George Murphy wrote:

    Your views of the development of science are wildly far from the mark. In particular, your statement that "science is constantly proving itself wrong" is simply - well, wrong. As I pointed out in a parallel post, many theories that have now been superseded as fundamental explanations, such as Newtonian physics, have not been shown to be "wrong" but have turned out to be limited to a certain range of phenomena. Newtonian physics is not "wrong" but is an excellent approximation in the realm of small velocities, weak gravitational fields and large actions. It may turn out that current evolutionary theory is unable to explain some phenomena, but within the realm of phenomena in which it has been tested it is unlikely to require qualitative modification.
  So what phenomena does a geocentrist theory describe accurately?

  Go outside & watch the sky for a couple of hours on a clear night. A geocentric theory explains everyday observations of celestial motions - the stars seems to turn around the earth every 24 hours, the sun & moon move around us relative to the stars &c. That's why geocentric models worked for so long. Similarly, it might turn out to be the case (though I doubt it seriously) that the whole neo-Darwinian theory of how evolution occurs will turn out to be mistaken but that the gross description of "descent with modification" supported so heavily by fossil evidence will still be correct.

  For that matter, general relativity allows one to use a coordinate system in which the earth rotates every 24 hours but the sun, moon & other planets orbit the earth. (This is what is called a semi-Tychonic model.) So the example you chose isn't a very good one.

   For every theory which fits your description history provides examples of 10 that fit mine.

  I doubt this very much, especially if we were to consider only what could reasonably be called scientific theories & not simply popular beliefs that have been invalidated by scientific development.

    Why are scientists so defensive and unwilling to admit what any clear reading of history says to everyone else?

  They're not.

  & you are right that scientists should be careful about making statements outside their field of competence. But this doesn't change the fact that one has to have some scientific competence in order to criticize scientific theories intelligently.

  I see, to criticize science you must be a scientist. It seems modern science fits the model of the inquisition quite readily. Only those who make the claims of science can criticize the claims of science. All that does is make me distrust science even more. A closed Cabal is unlikely to be the sort of group that allows for truth-finding. If science is not open to criticism from outside of science, it is merely another fundamentalist religion which no one should trust. Maybe you can tell me, why should we believe that someone is giving us the truth, when they claim they are above criticism except for criticism by those who agree with them in the first place?

  A lapse into sarcasm & scare tactics when reason fails. Do you really want to challenge the claim that a person should have some competence in a field in order to criticize work in that field? Can I criticize Japanese literature even though I know no Japanese & have read (I think) only one Japanese novel in translation? I am not saying that one has to be a professional scientist or to agree with particular scientific ideas in order to have some right to talk about them, only that one should know what one is talking about.
Received on Sun Jan 16 07:52:40 2005