RE: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

Experimental scientists do experiments that can be generalized into laws of Nature. What experiments do forensic scientists do? What are the generalizations in forensics science? I cannot think of any besides profiling.

Moorad
________________________________________
From: Kirk Bertsche [Bertsche@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:42 PM
To: George Murphy
Cc: Alexanian, Moorad; Iain Strachan; Dehler, Bernie; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

I agree with George's perspective: the distinction between
"experimental" and "forensic" science is wrong-headed. I do not hear
scientists making this distinction; it seems to come from non-
scientists who wish to reject the conclusions of "forensic" science
while accepting "experimental" science.

This distinction often comes with some assumptions, e.g.
1) "forensic" science relies on observations which are more indirect
and more inferential than "experimental" science, so "forensic"
science is less reliable
2) "forensic" science can only rely on "extant physical data"; new
experiments and new data are not possible

Neither assumption is true, in general. Some "experimental" science
(e.g. particle physics) is even more indirect and inferential than
much of "forensic" science. "Forensic" science allows for new
observations of the past to test theories. Furthermore, with newer
and better telescopes we can look back further in time and gather new
"forensic" data.

Kirk

On Jul 21, 2009, at 10:55 AM, George Murphy wrote:

> For starters, I think that your characterization of forensic
> science is wrong. Forensic scientists do not simply "suppose a
> scenario." They collect physical evidence from a scene and from
> it, using theories with some degree of support, try to reconstruct
> events.
>
> More broadly, the whole attempt to distinguish sharply
> "experimental" from "historical," "forensic" &c science is wrong.
> Of course there are differences but they are differences of degree,
> not clear-cut qualitative distinctions.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexanian, Moorad"
> <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>; "Dehler, Bernie"
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:53 AM
> Subject: RE: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology
> according to Terry
>
>
>> Many of us have often said that evolutionary theory is more akin
>> to forensic science than to experimental science. Recall that for
>> all the data that was presented in the O.J. Simpson trial, the
>> jury did reach the wrong verdict. This may also be the case for
>> those investigating the past with regard to the question of
>> origins. In forensic science, one supposes a scenario and attempts
>> to prove it with extant physical data. People have to recognize
>> the true nature of evolutionary theory and stop comparing it to
>> theories that are used in the experimental sciences.
>>
>> Moorad
>> ________________________________________

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 19:35:20 2009