From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Tue Apr 22 2003 - 00:10:24 EDT
Moorad,
Sounds to me as though you are making the claim that the collection of
data is science. You also seem to feel that only the purely mechanical
can be scientific. May I suggest that a dictionary is as objective as
anything a physicist does?
Dave
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:33:07 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
<alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:
> Scientists do look and record but, in principle, the data collected
> by looking and recording can be done by machines. It may be cheaper
> and more convenient for a scientist, as physical device, to take
> data but such data collecting can be always done, in principle, by
> purely physical devices. It is easy to design a physical device that
> can measure the lengths of things. Man is part physical and as
> such can collect data, but if such data cannot be called by purely
> physical devices, then such data does not constitute part of the
> subject matter of science. I find no other definition of science
> that makes it clear that science ought to be objective and deal
> solely with the physical aspect of reality. Moorad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Mon 4/21/2003 4:26 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad
> Cc: michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk; hvantill@chartermi.net;
> gmurphy@raex.com; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: ID science (subtopic 2)
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:54:08 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
> <alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:
> > 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
> >
> Moorad,
> If I take your claim seriously, then a scientist does not
> look or record.
> About as simple a mechanical device as I can think of is a
> meter stick. I
> have never known one to line itself up and declare the
> length. We now
> have recording devices that collect immense amounts of data
> and analyze
> it so that the limited human inputs and analytical powers
> can hope to
> understand what is going on. But one may look at this as
> speeding up what
> used to involve a person eyeballing a galvanometer or cloud
> chamber--and
> possibly looking again to be sure of getting the reading
> right. Do
> eyeballs fall under "purely physical device"?
> Dave
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 22 2003 - 00:14:39 EDT