Re: definition of science (Dooyeweerd)

Terry -

Granted, God _could_ have made things this way. As a scientist I find it
very hard to picture how it would work. Obviously there is some interaction
between the realm of biology & that of physics & chemistry. Biological
systems are influenced by things like external EM fields in ways that
physics leads us to expect & emit EM radiation that behaves like radiation
from non-living things. The laws govering phenomena seem to be the same on
both sides of the "boundary."

There may well be discontinuities characterizing the emergence of life &
consciousness, something of the nature of phase transitions. (Teilhard has
some hints about this.) But that wouldn't mean that there were different
fundamental laws for the 2 realms, any more than there are different
fundamental laws for liquids & gases.

You may remember (or am I showing my age?) that back in 1983 JASA (as it was
then called) had a symposium organized by Russ Maatman on "The Unity in
Creation." My contribution to that is at
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1983/JASA3-83Murphy.html .

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 2:02 AM
Subject: 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
>
Received on Sat May 7 16:22:24 2005