Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

A few sage sayings to add to the mix:

"It is ... recognized that what we can know (epistomology) will never
be the way nature is (ontology). ... In other words, as stated by ...
Heisenberg, our knowledge of nature can never mean anything more than
the perception of connections, unifying features or marks of affinity
in the manifold." -- Gopala Rao

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how
nature is. Physics concerns only what we can SAY about nature." --
Bohr

"It has become clear that science is not in contact with ultimate
reality, that it is describing the waves and not the water of the
ocean of reality." -- unknown

Numbers are not data.
Data are not facts.
Facts are not information.
Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not truth.
Truth is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not virtue.
Virtue is not love.
Love, however, is not chocolate! -- me

jb

On 8/27/08, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
> I'm currently enjoying a course by Prof. Steven Goldman at Lehigh U title
> "Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It." Certainly he
> underscores the rather shaky philosophical underpinnings of observational
> science. No, it is by no means absolute truth but, as you point out, it
> isn't relativism either.
>
> The debate about so-called "historical" vs "observational" science
> (categories which I hesitate to use) is indeed an important one from the
> perspective of what we know and how we know it. Goldman points out that "in
> explaining natural phenomena, nature must be treated as a closed system
> epistemologically (natural phenomena can be explained as the effects of
> natural causal agents only). This rule is first found in the 12th century
> treatise "Natural Questions" by the English monk Adelard of Bath." He goes
> on to talk about how the fundamental biblical concept of God's faithfulness
> and unchanging nature coupled with the creation of all things then leads to
> the basic assumption that the laws of nature apply everywhere and for all
> time. This provides the basis for being able to do historical science.
> Causal relationships that we observe today can be safely (though not in an
> absolute sense) assumed to have been valid in the past.
>
> In addition to the issues raised by several of you, questions about the
> validity of the "historical" sciences also seem to arise in order to allow
> for divine intervention in the past. This can range from wanting to allow
> for changing decay constants in radioactive elements (RATE) to progressive
> creationism with periodic intervention. None of this, I would submit, is
> consistent with the core Christian worldview assumption of the faithfulness
> and unchanging character of God the creator of all things. Though we cannot
> logically or empirically rule out such a possibility, it does not seem to be
> biblically or theologically consistent.
>
> Hence, I would suggest that the main limitation of "historical" science is
> that it is possible that crucial information may be lost forever and cannot
> be retrieved. But then in "observational" science there may be parameters
> that are beyond reach of our capabilities. Both have limitations. The
> distinction between "historical" vs "observational" is not the primary
> factor in what we know or don't know but the availability of critical and
> relevant data.
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce Bennett" <304law@bellsouth.net>
> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Non-controversial science
>
>
>>I think everyone is missing my point. I am NOT post-modern in my thinking,
>>
>>and in fact rail against relativism in discussions with others regularly.
>>I believe in absolute truths, the value of science both historical and
>>non-historical, and see science as not just complementary but also
>>supportive of theology. But science, just like theology, does not provide
>>100% proof of absolute truths. It provides evidence, sometimes apparent
>>indisputable evidence, that still must be accepted on faith or belief. The
>>
>>fact we have free will to reason and accept or reject the evidence does not
>>
>>belong to scientists, lawyers, theologians, politicians or anyone other
>>than the individual. Just because there is a best way to explain an
>>outcome, i.e., the rabbit and the fox example, clearly doesn't make it an
>>absolute truth. I just cannot always reject other possible realistic
>>outcomes just because there is some better reason, or because that's all
>>the information I have. To me that's overly simplistic. But that doesn't
>>make me a relativist. Individuals make determinations of what are
>>absolute truths based on what we learn (evidence) through our five senses,
>>at a given time and place in history, and then apply reason to accept or
>>reject them. This is our design and what we are expected to do when we
>>accept Christ. Otherwise there would be no need for faith. I admit my
>>legal training and experience could easily lead me down a post-modern path,
>>
>>and I can see how you may have interpreted my comments that way, but it's
>>not the case. You view information from the perspective of a scientist and
>>
>>I from that of a lawyer, and yet we both believe in absolute truths. I
>>think the difference may be in how we process the evidence that ultimately
>>leads us to those truths. One thing I've learned from many years of
>>school, multiple degrees/certifications and human experience is that the
>>more I know, the more I realize the less I know, but that the more I also
>>believe in absolute truths.
>>
>> Michael Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bruce W. Bennett
>> Bennett Law Offices, LLC
>> P.O. Box 968
>> Grayson, GA 30017
>>
>> tele. (770) 978-7603
>> FAX (770) 978-7628
>>
>>
>> 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.
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.