From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Wed Apr 23 2003 - 16:50:46 EDT
Defining science as dealing with things that could, in principle, be measured by purely physical devices seems like a reasonable approach to me. This does not necessarily exclude all studies of human behavior, emotion, etc. For example, a computer could be programed to analyze facial expressions in response to particular stimuli, looking for patterns.
This also does not entirely equate to methodological naturalism, because a non-natural force or agent could be theorized to act in a physically measurable manner. For example, many newspapers claim that supernatural forces exerted by the stars and planets cause people born at certain times of the year to have more similar experiences than those born at different times of the year. Data on the experiences of people born throughout the year could be fed into a computer, along with horoscopes, and the computer could determine that the horoscopes are statistically invalid. However, this does not address the question of whether astronomical objects exert supernatural forces; it just shows that they do not act the way astrologers claim that they do.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 16:43:49 EDT