Fishman's whole argument equates a Bayesian approach with science. Yet ironically, Fishman notes something early on in his article that completely undercuts this position:
These considerations (to be discussed further below) are naturally captured within the framework of Bayesian confirmation theory, which is widely considered to be a good description of how scientists (and indeed ordinary people under mundane circumstances, such as in a court of law) update or revise their degree of confidence in a hypothesis, starting with a given prior probability, on the basis of new evidence. (emphasis added)
Clearly, the Bayesian approach can be and is used outside of science.
Thus, Fishman builds on a logical fallacy - just because science uses the Bayesian approach does not mean that any inquiry or analysis that uses the Bayesian approach is science.
- Mike
PS: Fishman never really defines "Science" (if I recall correctly).
Is he talking "Science" is some abstract, philosophical sense or a concrete, sociological sense?
Okay, he's wrong. Was there something else?
"While scientific evidence may ultimately support a naturalistic worldview,
science does not presuppose Naturalism as an a priori commitment, and supernatural
claims are amenable to scientific evaluation."
Yours faithfully,
Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
www.historicalgenesis.com
I would be interested to know if anyone on the list has read the following article which is available as a pre-print at the www.springerlink.com webpage. The article will appear sometime this year in the journal Science & Education. I have a pdf copy if anyone would like to see the article but does not have access to SpringerLink. As I say, I'm curious as to how people on the list might respond to Fishman's arguments, especially those more philosophically trained than I am!
grace & peace
bill
Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews?
Yonatan I. Fishman
Abstract Several prominent scientists, philosophers, and scientific institutions have
argued that science cannot test supernatural worldviews on the grounds that (1) science
presupposes a naturalistic worldview (Naturalism) or that (2) claims involving supernatural
phenomena are inherently beyond the scope of scientific investigation. The present paper
argues that these assumptions are questionable and that indeed science can test supernatural
claims. While scientific evidence may ultimately support a naturalistic worldview,
science does not presuppose Naturalism as an a priori commitment, and supernatural
claims are amenable to scientific evaluation. This conclusion challenges the rationale
behind a recent judicial ruling in the United States concerning the teaching of ''Intelligent
Design'' in public schools as an alternative to evolution and the official statements of two
major scientific institutions that exert a substantial influence on science educational policies
in the United States. Given that science does have implications concerning the
probable truth of supernatural worldviews, claims should not be excluded a priori from
science education simply because they might be characterized as supernatural, paranormal,
or religious. Rather, claims should be excluded from science education when the evidence
does not support them, regardless of whether they are designated as 'natural' or
'supernatural'.
Dr. Bill Cobern, Director
The George G. Mallinson Institute for Science Education
University Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences and Science Education
College of Arts & Sciences
Western Michigan University
3225 Wood Hall
Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5444
Voice: +269.387.5407 FAX: +269.387.4998
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~cobern/
Yes, there really is a Kalamazoo!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 20 23:43:29 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 20 2009 - 23:43:29 EDT