Re: definition of science (Dooyeweerd)

Some rhetorical stacking of the deck place when this ontology is said to be
"richer" than a "reductionist" one. Was physics "richer" when we needed
separate laws for QED & the weak interaction than it is now with electroweak
unification? Would our understanding of linguistics be "richer" if we had
to deal with each of the Indo-European languages as a separate entity
instead of seeing them as related? Is "piecemeal" necessarily "richer"?

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Cc: <zylu@calvin.edu>; <leeg@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: definition of science (Dooyeweerd)

> Here's my limited defense of ID. When I "debate" these guys, I always give
> this in principle acceptance of the idea. I don't think there is any
> empirical evidence to support conclusions along these lines, but I don't
> rule it out that it is somehow unscientific in principle. If what ID is
> talking about is what I'm describing below, then we can easily do science
> (in fact, we already do in as much as disciplines are autonomous) in some
> of these terms.
>
> This flows out of what you might call a Dooyeweerdian "Reformed"
> philosophy. Look at the PSCF/JASA indicies if you want to find out some
> more about that. There have been a few ASA members (some associated with
> Calvin College, but others as well) who operate in this framework.
>
> Let's suppose that God's lawful creational governing is inherently
> anti-reductionist. That there's one set of laws that governs physical
> things. Another set of laws that governs biological things. Another set of
> laws that governs psychological things. Another set of laws that governs
> sociological things. Another set of laws that governs economic things.
> Etc. Etc. Etc. This, of course, is a much rich ontology than we are used
> to. There's lots of provisos and explanations that must be given to
> explain all this. If you're brave, you can tackle Dooyeweerd's *New
> Critique of Theoretical Thought* or some of the "condensations", say
> Kalsbeek's *Contours of a Christian Philosophy*. One important proviso
> that must be made to squelch any initial objections is that the "higher"
> order law structures build up on and encapsulate the lower level
> structures. In other words, one cannot simply use the fact that biological
> systems are composed entirely (in their substances) of physical/chemical
> things.
.......................................................
Received on Fri May 6 20:38:59 2005