Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

I'm afraid we may get into word games about "theory" &c which I don't find
very helpful. I'm not talking about interpretations of theories like
Newton's & the theory that evolution accounts for observations about
fossils, homologies &c but of further theories such as those of Einstein &
Darwin. Those further theories, as I said, both broaden & deepen the
earlier versions. The term "covering theory" has somethimes been used for
them. Certainly the later are science if they are open to observational
tests. I would contrast them with "interpretations" like those that have
been proposed for quantum mechanics. The latter I would put in the
philosophy of science category. Admittedly the boundaries between science &
philosophy of science are pretty porous.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "wjp" <wjp@swcp.com>
To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Cc: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

> George:
>
> No doubt you are correct that individual scientists will always seek to
> know the why, or what's behind any theory. Indeed, if they did not desire
> to do so, there may be no science.
>
> I wonder, however, whether such ruminations or "schools" of interpretation
> ought to be viewed as properly part of science.
>
> When we think of science, abstracted from individual scientists, such
> views have, it seems, no relevance. The assessment and acceptance of a
> theory also tends to be indifferent to such interpretations. Where it
> likely carries significant weight is in that area of science never fully
> discussed and never taught: that is, in the individual acts of discovery.
>
> bill
>
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:56:20 -0400, "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> I want to comment just on the piece of Bill's post that I snip below.
>>
>> Of course we can believe, & have strong evidence for believing, that
>> evolution has happened & is happening without knowing what makes it work.
>> In the same way, one can regard Newton's law of universal gravitation
>> simply
>> as a well supported empirical rule with no attempt to understand why it's
>> true. That is what Newton meant when he said "I do not make hypotheses,"
>> not theorizing in general. He was not adverse to all hypotheses.
>>
>> But scientists are not satisfied with such positions. Some may argue
>> that
>> they should be but they generally aren't. They look for reasons why
>> things
>> behave in one way & not another. & when we find that our empirical rules
>> run into probleems - when we realize that Newton's laws don't account
>> precisely for details of orbital mechanics or if we start wondering why
>> the
>> coelecanth is still around - we're going to look for theories that will
>> (a)
>> broaden our original empirical rules & (b) at the same time tell us why
>> those rules are approximately true.
>>
>> (The coelecanth example is perhaps a poor one. The YEC notion that its
>> survival challenges evolution is of course nonsense. But it is natural
>> to
>> wonder why some species survive for a long time & others don't. & one of
>> the deficiencies of merely saying "evolution happens" is that we have no
>> way
>> of getting at such questions.)
>>
>> Shalom
>> George - unapologetic theorist
>> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bill Powers" <wjp@swcp.com>
>> To: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
>> Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 9:19 AM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry
>>
>>
>>> Cameron:
>> ...........................
>>> Now you come and say that Darwinian evolution is "weak" science. You
>>> never doubt, it seems, that evolution has taken place. You simply
>>> question the means.
>>>
>>> One needs to ask what is the significance of questioning the means. When
>>> Newton proposed his theory of gravity, he refused to posit an opinion as
>>> to how gravity acted, taking such an effort to be a remnant of
>>> Aristotleian physics. Most of the questions that the Aristotelians
>> asked
>>> of him and other science are still unanswered and science has
>> "progressed"
>>> nonetheless.
>>>
>>> Naively I ask, to what extent does evolutionary science depend upon the
>>> specific means of biological evolution? Chromosome fusion and the like
>>> appear equally consistent with chance, lawfulness, and intelligence.
>> ...........................
>>
>>
>> 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 Tue Jul 21 09:20:35 2009