Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

To me this is frightfully post-modern and relativises everything.

One of dawkins' sensible comments is "show me a postmodernist at 30000ft"
i.e. about to be pushed out of a plane. All know the results of g even if
one cannot give a number to it. g is truth!

Too much can be made of objective and subjective and today science is far
more aware that the observer has some bearing on the results but that does
not make everything subjective.

As for proof in the eyes of the beholder, this is where rigour in science
comes in as much for historical science as anything else. Personal belief
can prevent any seeing as in the case of global warming deniers, who have to
run against the whole consensus of science.

Finally geology is as much a hard science as anything like physics and
chemistry. There is hard evidence to deal with as when with some groups
(including Harvard students) we look at the Bellstone in Shrewsbury. This is
a rounded boulder 3ft across which has been left. Darwin mentioned as
inexplicable in 1820s. It was realised that the rock type indicated it came
from Scotland and its original locatioon could be worked out. That is hard
evidence, and histroical science seeks to explain things like that. As Keith
points out these methods have rigour .

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Bennett" <304law@bellsouth.net>
To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

> Thanks Michael. I am only trying to parse the subjective from the
> objective. There are sincere beliefs from intelligent folks that are
> reasonable and supportable who are diametrically opposed. Some argue
> persuasively that nicotine is not harmful or that global warning is not
> real, or a host of other things. I'm not picking on the age of the earth
> or any other particular "fact" of historical science to say it can't be
> "proven". I only say that proof is in the eyes of the beholder. If I see
> a car and say it is red and you see the same car and say it is orange,
> whose to say my fact is right and yours is wrong or vica-versa? Your
> fact may have far more support and be generally accepted, but the
> acceptance of the 'fact' as fact is up to the individual hearing about it
> and not by the person telling it. Bruce
>
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 27 01:59:58 2008