Re: ID science (subtopic 2)

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Wed Apr 23 2003 - 14:11:27 EDT

  • Next message: Stephen J. Krogh: "RE: No death before the fall theology"

    On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:20:15 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
    <alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:
    > Dear Dave,
    >
    >
    >
    > Humans, as detectors of physical reality, can take data but all such
    > data can be taken, in principle, by purely physical devices. Eyes
    > detect the visual electromagnetic spectrum, skin can detect infrared
    > radiation, ears can detect sound waves, etc. In such instances, a
    > human is using its physical body to interact and detect physical
    > phenomena. Of course, humans are more than that since the can
    > “detect” the spiritual aspect of reality----not to mention self
    > and rationality. Objective data requires interpretation in order to
    > infer laws of nature and so there can be erroneous interpretation as
    > your examples indicate. But none of that indicates any inadequacy in
    > my definition of the subject matter of science.
    >
    > Moorad

    OK, I think I got it. Because psychologists and sociologists can seldom
    use physical devices to measure what is relevant in their disciplines,
    they are not scientists. I take it that rating scales and surveys are not
    really physical devices. This claim can also be extended to larger parts
    of anthropology, archeology and other disciplines. A craniometer is OK,
    but descriptions of religions and social practices aren't. What about the
    not-quite-yet measurement of the Higgs? the impossibility of accuracy
    imposed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Because of the
    restrictions imposed by the Planck scale, is the Big Bang outside of
    science? Where do you draw the line with measurement by physical devices?
    Dave



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 14:14:33 EDT