Re: Kansas Closing arguments

Please note that George a physicist is in total agreement with me a
geologist. We both recognise the differences between experimental and
historical sciences. Also George rejects this mythical assumed timeline.
Geological time always has been a conclusion (tentative or not ) from all
the available evidence.

BTW I should have said that plate tectonics did not affect the way geology
was done. It was hardly worthy of the term "Paradigm Change" but then I
think that Kuhn is not helpful on how science changed in the past. He tried
to do it over the geologist Lyell and got it woefully wrong!

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>; "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "Keith Miller" <kbmill@ksu.edu>;
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Kansas Closing arguments

> No, my 1st 2 paragraphs don't agree entirely with your post because I said
> nothing about an "assumed timeline." There is, in particular, no "assumed
> timeline" in astronomy.
>
> I'm sorry that my closing paragraph saddened you but the fact that it does
> doesn't make it a non sequitur.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "Michael Roberts"
> <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "Keith Miller" <kbmill@ksu.edu>;
> <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:31 AM
> Subject: RE: Kansas Closing arguments
>
>
>> Your first two paragraphs agree entirely with my post to which you
>> replied. Therefore, the last paragraph is a non sequitur and I am sad
>> that you wrote it.
>>
>> Moorad
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
>> Sent: Wed 5/18/2005 2:47 PM
>> To: Alexanian, Moorad; Michael Roberts; Keith Miller; asa@calvin.edu
>> Subject: Re: Kansas Closing arguments
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
>> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "Keith Miller"
>> <kbmill@ksu.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:59 PM
>> Subject: RE: Kansas Closing arguments
>>
>>
>>> We all know what historical science is. Historical science = assumed
>>> timeline + results from experimental sciences. The former is the history
>>> part and the latter is the science part. Detective work, forensic
>>> science
>>> that is what historical science is.
>>
>> & your point is?
>>
>> Astronomy & astrophysics are "historical sciences" every bit as much as
>> is
>> geology or evolutionary biology. In astronomy we are always dealing with
>> the past, & often the very distant past. We can do "controlled
>> experiments"
>> on full-scale astronomical phenomena even less than we can in geology or
>> biological evolution. But no one suggests that astronomy is less of a
>> science than is physics or chemistry.
>>
>> In part the difference (between the way astronomy & geology are viewed)
>> stems from the fact that we tend to consider the astronomical signals
>> that
>> we get via EM radiation as more direct than the geological or
>> paleontological signals that we get via fossils &c. But in reality they
>> are
>> both signals that come from the past & which require theories for their
>> interpretation. In neither case do we have theory-free raw data. The
>> fact
>> that the geological & paleontological data is more difficult to interpret
>> because the phenomena are messier doesn't change this in principle.
>>
>> Moorad, the sort of arguments you present are expected from scientific
>> diletantes like P. Johnson but a competent physicist like yourself
>> shouldn't
>> be doing this.
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thu May 19 13:47:08 2005