Re: [asa] Keller on Evolution

Michael and George, please answer this question: have you read W. Windelband, W. Dilthey or H. Rickert? Have you come across the distinction between 'ideographic' and 'nomothetic' judgments before? If not, then please let's temper the discussion.
   
  Noteworthy is the fact that Moorad comes from a different cultural-scientific background than the two of you, i.e. not being influenced by the biases and benefits of western, anglo-saxon science in his early education. Since I am currently engaged in the realm of German-Russian thought, which differs from the Anglo-Saxon tradition (e.g. philosophy of science and science of science - science studies - naukovedeniye), it seems suitable to defend Moorad's position and to send caution that your way is not the 'only way.' Historicity and repeatability are indeed real issues, significant ones when discussing 'evolution' (e.g. when Karl Popper calls evolution the greatest example of 'historicism').
   
  George's hesitation to embrace any 'hard and fast' fashion is considered and careful. But Moorad's point is not just 'obfuscation' or 'improper'. There is a tradition that appears to be outside of your respective radars - this doesn't mean the discussion is meaningless or even peripheral! Michael, please refrain from words such as 'silly.' They are unbecoming of polite dialogue. You were doing so well for a time by refraining! -)

  'What science IS' to a geologist, surely does not encompass all that 'science is'! So, for the benefit of the doubt that anyone could possiby speak for 'all of what science is,' it is probably best to err on the side of caution in accusing others of 'ignorance.'
   
  In hope of promoting multilogue communicative competence (Habermas),
  Gregory
   
   
  
Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
    Moorad

I would second George and I get extremely irritated by your silly comments on historical science. They exhibit a gross ignorance and misunderstanding of what science is which includes both the historical and the experimental. I would suggest that you complete your scientific education and find out just how scientific and sound historical sciences like geology are.

I may add that I have questions against Keller (from the descriptions) but I laud what he is trying to do

Michael

  ----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy"
To: "ASA list"
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Keller on Evolution

> Moorad -
>
> This distinction has been debated a good deal here (& in other venues), &
> as I think you know, I think it's a mistake to make it in any hard & fast
> fashion. But let's grant your point for the sake of argument. What does
> it have to do with the truth of the statement about evolution. The claim
> that Julius Caesar was assasinated in Rome in 44 B.C. is then not
> scientific but historical. Do you doubt that it's true? Perhaps you
> would argue that in this case we have "historical records" - i.e., written
> accounts - about the event. But what then about the information that
> archaeologists get from sites where we don't have written records, or at
> least records we can read, like the Indus Valley civilization?
>
> Making proper distinctions is certainly critical but sometimes the
> distinctions aren't proper & are just obfuscation.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexanian, Moorad"
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 8:45 AM
> Subject: RE: [asa] Keller on Evolution
>
>
> One must keep always in mind that statements like "evolution has happened" or "evolution is a (historical) fact" are actually historical and not scientific statements. Herein lies the whole issue of evolution as historical science rather than an experimental science.
>
>
> Moorad

       
---------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 26 19:22:04 2008