From: Alexanian, Moorad (alexanian@uncw.edu)
Date: Mon Apr 21 2003 - 13:54:08 EDT
A purely physical device is one that is purely material and is, for
instance, devoid of life, self-consciousness, and lacks the ability to
reason. One must distinguish between the data that makes up the subject
matter of science and the intelligent being that set up the physical
equipment that collects the data and, subsequently, analyzes the
collected data and devolves mathematical models and theories that
correlate a multitude of data.
Moorad
------Original Message-----
From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 11:00 AM w
To: Alexanian, Moorad; Howard J. Van Till; George Murphy
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: ID science (subtopic 2)
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 - 13:54:41 EDT