tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410615559824660051.post7227911948365267002..comments2023-10-18T05:31:21.249-07:00Comments on Peregrinations: More on ScientismRick Gerhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10478878021692544533noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410615559824660051.post-82350297792985747682009-09-28T13:13:28.730-07:002009-09-28T13:13:28.730-07:00Hi David:
My whole point is that there is no defi...Hi David:<br /><br />My whole point is that there is no definition of science that passes muster. Your definition--"Science investigates evidence and seeks after the best answer"--is inadequate simply because there are a whole lot of other disciplines that we don't think of as science that do the same thing.<br /><br />The school teacher who examines the trail of spitballs in an effort to determine who is the culprit in her 6th period class is investigating evidence and seeking after the best answer, but we don't usually say that she is acting as a scientist.<br /><br />So, the chemist is doing science, and the watercolor artist is not. But what about intelligent design theory? Is it scientific? The courts have thus far said no, but their position is without any rational support. In fact, philosophers of science unanimously recognize that ID is a scientific theory, and that primarily because of its subject matter (living things, physical things).<br /><br />So I'm okay with not being able to define science (but recognizing it when I see it) because the very best philosophers of science likewise cannot define it.<br /><br />Thanks for reading!Rick Gerhardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10478878021692544533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410615559824660051.post-14206239200153782602009-09-28T03:27:13.769-07:002009-09-28T03:27:13.769-07:00Rick,
I have often used a definition of science a...Rick,<br /><br />I have often used a definition of science as an approach that falsifies the claims of previous scientists. Copernicua, Kepler, Galileo and Newton falsified the geocentric theory. Then the space program added further evidence to falsify the geocentric theory. Most science teachers I meet talk about the currently prevailing thery. <br /><br />The Supreme Court is currently operating under a definition of science that is quite closed. They are interpreting legal claims based on a definition that supports natural materialism. <br /><br />I urge you to be clearer about your definition of science. Using the Courts principle for identifying pornography as the mechanism for identifying science is much too fuzzy. To say that we know it when we see it suggests that we all collectively have a community standard for science. Is there such a communal understanding? <br /><br />I am in favor of a broader interpretation of science. Science investigates evidence and seeks after the best current answer.<br /><br />David DoreAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com