Re: [asa] ID is not "science" because...

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
wrote:

> David Clounch said:
> "The theory was accurate at the time Fischer's statement was first made,
> and it was also accurate later after macromolecules were discovered (the
> theory having been revised). It was also factual in both timeframes. But
> scientific facts change over time (unlike common facts) because science is
> tentative and subject to change as new information becomes available.
>
>
>
> I don't think so. First, theories are never proven- they can only be
> disproven.
>
But I didnt say Fisher's theory was proven. Only that it was considered to
be the scientific facts at the time, based on the best available knowledge.

And the idea was indeed disproven when new evidence became available. Is
this not the basis of Judge Overton's conclusion on science being tentative
in nature?

[BTW, As I recall this example was probably one of 10 examples I got from a
textbook used for years at UW Madison.] I shall try to list all of those
later.

As for heliocentricity:
Heliocentricity was considered to be counter to scientific fact at one
time. Indeed, D'Souza writes that Thomas Kuhn writes that one of Galileo's
main arguments in favor of heliocentricity, i.e., that the motion of the
earth around the sun causes the tides, was just plain wrong in a scientific
sense. It wasn't until the next century that better data became available
and geocentricity was proven false. (So, don't we actually agree?)
Anyway, at the time, given the available data, both theories
(geocentric/heliocentric) were tentative. And their status changed.

Sometime later, somewhere along the line a tentative scientific fact turned
into a common fact that millions of people have observed in an ordinary
sense. Scientific facts and common facts are thus not mutually
exclusive. They are overlapping sets. But they do not totally overlap.
This then is the problem with the argument in Cobb County. The court seems
to have taken the position that the two sets are somehow identical.
Indeed, it seems the litigants think so too. It is a problem based on lack
of precision.

Cheers,
Dave C

> They only stick around as long as they aren't disproven or until a better
> one comes along. Some science changes completely, some gets modified, and
> some is *exact and will never change*.
>
>
>
> Exact science example: heliocentricity (not likely to ever change)
>
> Modified science example: the nature and operation of some sub-atomic
> particles (quarks, for example)
>
> Changes completely: Origin of life hypotheses, and origin of the big-bang
> (multiverse, inflation, etc.)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:44 PM
> *To:* j burg
> *Cc:* Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] ID is not "scinece" because...
>
>
>
> How about this one?
>
> 3. Should public schools require the teaching that there are no carbon
> molecules with more than 40 units.?
>
> (Based on Emil Fischer's statement at one time that there are no larger
> chains)
>
> "No. Instead of mandating the dogma that carbon chains can be as large as
> anyone wants, Discovery
>
> Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on
> teaching students more about current theories in organic chemistry,
> including telling
> them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in
>
> peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, the dogma that all
> all carbon molecules are smaller than 40 units should be taught as a
> scientific theory that is open
>
> to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.
> We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students,
> teachers, and parents."
>
>
> At the time Emil made his claim it was both a scientific theory that
> there are no large organic molecules, and it was a scientific fact. The
> reason of course was biochemistry had yet to be discovered.
> Later, after the discovery, the scientific facts changed. As did the
> scientific theory. The theory was accurate at the time Fischer's statement
> was first made, and it was also accurate later after macromolecules were
> discovered (the theory having been revised). It was also factual in both
> timeframes. But scientific facts change over time (unlike common facts)
> because science is tentative and subject to change as new information
> becomes available.
>
> The argument over "facts" is actually nonsense. Scientific facts can and
> do change. Most do not, but some do. I just gave one example. Others come
> to mind.
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:24 AM, j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/6/08, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote (quoted)
> from the DISCOVERY website:
>
> >
>
> > 3. Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design?
> >
> > No. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute
> recommends
> > that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about
> > evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's
> > problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In
> > other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is
> open
> > to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We
> > believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students,
> > teachers, and parents.
> >
> > This is what the DI is selling:
>
> Interesting. Let's see if the above can be expanded into other fields:
>
> 3. Should public schools require the teaching of gravity?
>
> No. Instead of mandating gravity, Discovery Institute recommends that
>
> states and school districts focus on teaching students more about
>
> force theory, including telling them about some of the theory's
>
> problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals.
>
> In other words, gravity should be taught as a scientific theory that
>
> is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be
> questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will
> benefit students, teachers, and parents.
>
> and
>
> 3. Should public schools require the teaching of an old earth?
>
> No. Instead of mandating an old earth, Discovery Institute recommends
>
> that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about
> evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's
> problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals.
>
> In other words, an old age for the earth should be taught as a
>
> scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred
> dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense
> approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents.
>
> and
>
> 3. Should public schools require the teaching that all races are equal.?
>
> No. Instead of mandating the dogma that all races are equal, Discovery
>
> Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on
> teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling
> them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in
>
> peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, the dogma that all
> races are equal should be taught as a scientific theory that is open
>
> to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.
> We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students,
> teachers, and parents.
>
> Other examples come to mind ...
>
> Burgy
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 26 16:14:54 2008