From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 21 2003 - 10:59:57 EDT
Moorad wrote;
> I have often written and stated that science must be defined by its
subject matter, which is data collected by purely physical devices.
Two questions;
1. What is a purely physical device?
2. The data colected is not in terpreted in itself (though the measurement
thereof will involve some interpretation). Does that mean scientists dont
interpret data?
I willleave the rest
Michael
I suppose that may be consistent with MN provided that we realize that MN
has implications on part of reality, what I call the physical aspect.
However, the most important part of reality relevant to the human character
of man resides in the non-physical aspect of reality, viz., human
consciousness and rationality, which is beyond the reaches of science.
Moorad
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard J. Van Till [mailto:hvantill@chartermi.net]
> Sent: Sat 4/19/2003 10:41 AM
> To: George Murphy
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: ID science (subtopic 2)
>
>
>
> >From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
>
> > John Burgeson wrote:
> >>
> >> Replying to Howard:
> >>
> >> >>Here's my preferred meaning: MN is not a statement about the
character of
> >> >>reality, but a statement about the way science is currently done.>>
> >>
> >> Agreed. If it WERE a statement about the reality of nature, it would be
> >> methodological atheism."
> >
> > If I may butt in here, it seems to me that the claim that MN is
successful does
> > have limited implications for the character of reality. It suggests
that
> > the physical
> > world has no "gaps" in the sense that the term is used when referring to
a
> > "God of the Gaps."
>
> Agreed. MN is a statement about the character of science as currently
practiced.
>
> However, the additional observation that MN has a very successful track
record has implications regarding the character of reality.
>
> Howard Van Till
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 21 2003 - 12:01:31 EDT