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

Dear Murray,

I wanted to emphasize the data on which scientific laws and theories are
based. It is clear that the scientific community must agree on the
validity and truthfulness of the data. Witness criteria used in peer
review of the premier journals, ability to reproduce the data by others,
etc. One does not deny individual abilities of the experimental
scientists, but the outcome on which laws and theories are developed
lies ultimately on the acquired data. It is clear that the mind,
rationality and consciousness of scientists come into play and, in my
opinion, all these are nonphysical entities. Surely, mind, rationality,
consciousness cannot be detected by purely physical devices. Therefore,
the nonphysical is an essential element of the whole of reality.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Murray Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 9:24 PM
To: ASA
Subject: 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 27 13:14:46 2008