Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID

Hi Moorad,

I've just posted an all too long-winded post on this, so I'll only offer this brief remark from a Polanyian perspective;

I think Polanyi would agree that one CAN set up an experiment to collect all the data one requires for a particular investigation BUT we ought not overlook just how much skill is involved in (1) deciding what question one is actually trying to answer; (2) determining what data one is going to need to resolve that question; and (2) designing the experiment to obtain that data.

Part of Polanyi's point is that the foregoing is so much a part of the learned ability (the "skill set") that each scientist brings to their investigations that we overlook that it is the MAJOR part of what scientists actually know and do. And the fact that they have to work it out their experimental strategies on the basis of their own (i.e. "personal") knowledge and experience just highlights how much of a skill (i.e. an aspect of "personal knowledge") this is. Thus intuition, insight, creativity, and many other "artistic" qualities are, and always will remain, a necessary part of the scientific method.

This all means that being able to exclude irrelevant data is a critical judgment call which the scientist makes on the basis of his/her personal assessment of how best to tackle the question at hand. In Polanyian terms, there would be no universal rule that one MUST exclude divine action. Rather, one would observe in learning how science is succesfully practiced that that successfull scientists generally exclude divine action as an explanatory hypothesis with little or no deleterious impact on their scientific investigations. One would thus learn that science doesn't _in practice_ deal in divine causation _as a general (if not universal) rule_. In this respect one might say that there is no reason why the scientist MUST exclude "non-physical evidence" but only that the scientist generally does because - in his/her estimation - such evidence won't impact their conclusions. And the strongest argument for this exclusion is simply that wisdom, as the Good Book tells us, is justi
 
fied by her children.

Blessings,
Murray.

Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
> Certainly, in physics, one can set up experiments that collect all the data that one needs to understand the physical aspect of Nature. Of course, the rationality, consciousness, and ingenuity of the physicist are needed to do all that. However, the data does not contain the physicist qua human being. Therefore, the physical aspect of Nature is based on data that has been collected as indicated. The issue is then, is all of science this way? I think it is so since that is what science is and the objectivity of the data so collected is beyond any doubt. To the extent that the science of living beings is more and more based on the molecular aspect of such beings, then the same is true in the living sciences.
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Gregory Arago [mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca]
> Sent: Wed 11/26/2008 2:47 PM
> To: David Opderbeck; Alexanian, Moorad
> Cc: George Murphy; John Burgeson (ASA member); David Clounch; john_walley@yahoo.com; Marcio Pie; ASA
> Subject: RE: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID
>
>
> Do you think the non-physical cannot impact the physical, Moorad? If not, and if you only trust to the physical evidence, then you're inevitably leaving out an important part (or parts) of 'all' the evidence. This is called the 'reflexivity' problem in human-social thought, which is also not entirely absent from ALL natural-physical sciences, since they are conducted by human beings. It's a graduation from your earlier-20th century physicistic 'observer' theory; we are (as embodied, historical persons) certainly part of/connected with what we observe, hear, feel, believe. And we all dream! - G.A.
>
> --- On Wed, 11/26/08, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
>
>
> From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> Subject: RE: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID
> To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> Cc: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>, "John Burgeson (ASA member)" <hossradbourne@gmail.com>, "David Clounch" <david.clounch@gmail.com>, john_walley@yahoo.com, "Marcio Pie" <pie@ufpr.br>, "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Received: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 10:35 PM
>
>
> I do not quite follow. What evidence did I leave out while I am doing physics
> research successfully?
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wed 11/26/2008 2:11 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad
> Cc: George Murphy; John Burgeson (ASA member); David Clounch;
> john_walley@yahoo.com; Marcio Pie; ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID
>
>
> Because your methodology is intentionally NOT to consider "all" the
> evidence.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
> However, when I do research in physics, I do not use any theological
> treatise to carry on my work. I suppose this is true when doing scientific
> work in any of the experimental sciences. Somehow, we have to be more
> specific and consider only the data that is truly relevant when doing
> unadulterated science.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Now with a new friend-happy design! Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger <http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/>
>
>
> 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 Wed Nov 26 21:24:48 2008