Re: definition of science (Dooyeweerd)

George,

Point well taken. And I'm not a committed Dooyeweerdian.

However, I would say (and I think that you would too) that we live
with whatever God deals us. That's the bottom-line point.

It's to be determined empirically, even for Dooyeweerd, whether
biology is reducible to chemistry/physics or whether psychology is
reducible to biology/chemistry/physics etc. We do a lot of science in
the discipline's own terms without any materialist/reductionist
assumptions.

I don't think we should rule out a priori that such boundaries don't
exist. At the same time, I don't want to rule out research programs
that attempt to cross the boundaries. I think that's a lot more
wishy-washy than ID folks or traditional Dooyeweerdians want to be.
ID (in the sense of which I'm speaking) and/or a Dooyeweerdian
philosophy of science would suggest that attempts to cross
God-created boundaries will be unproductive and that research
programs and theorizing that acknowledges them will be
productive--this is in fact how most discipline-centric science goes.
Inter-disciplinary research tests these boundaries and either better
defines them or eliminates them. As optimistic as I am that the
biology/chemistry boundary will be eliminated, I don't think that it
has been. I guess I would disagree with the ID folks (and
Dooyeweerdians) in their conclusion that the
reductionistic/materialistic paradigm has failed.

TG

>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.
>.......................................................

-- 
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801