Re: [asa] paradigm shifts/Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' = Naturalism

Clarification I obviously know what physics is... I meant I needed a clarification on what the point about physics was. :)

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: "WENDEE HOLTCAMP" <wholtcamp@comcast.net>

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:12:46
To:<asa@calvin.edu>
Cc:<gbrown@Colorado.EDU>, <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [asa] paradigm shifts/Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' = Naturalism

Unfortunately I don’t have time to engage in a lengthy discussion now as I have guests coming in from out of town, deadlines and a zillion things to do. I was planning on unsubscribing from the list. Sorry!!
 
I don’t really have the answers… I think that yes science in its hypothesis testing does differentiate science from all other fields. Math well you have proofs, but in science nothing is ever proven.  It’s just falsified. And really only hypotheses are falsified, and theories change or modify but rarely get completely rejected (an exception being the geocentric theory). I’m not familiar with what you mean by physics. I don’t have time to read the book but if you can boil down the point you’re trying to convey I can try to quickly reply.
 
Theology can test hypotheses but unless they use statistics and peer review, they’re still just engaging in #2 Developing Ideas and Drawing Implications.
 
Gordon, I’m not sure what you mean by saying “I don't follow your reasoning when you see mathematics as having more in common with history and philosophy than with science” what did I say/write specifically to make you think this?
 
PS The piece is meant to address a layperson audience, to give a tear out to people going before SBOEs and similar entities. It’s not intended to the end all and be-all answer to what science is. It boils it down and simplifies, accurately I believe, so that your average Jo(e) can both understand and have some talking points for debating the powers that would reject evolution etc.
 
Wendee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Wendee Holtcamp * Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian
                http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com
 Bohemian Adventures Blog * http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com
The Fish Wars: A Christian Evolutionist http://thefishwars.blogspot.com
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Online Writing Course! Starting Aug 4. Sign Up Online!
 
 
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of David Opderbeck
 Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:24 PM
 To: WENDEE HOLTCAMP
 Cc: Gregory Arago; asa@calvin.edu
 Subject: Re: [asa] paradigm shifts/Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' = Naturalism
 
 
Wendee, as someone who's moderately sympathetic to social perspectives on science (though skeptical about ID), I'd push back a bit on your very narrow and (it seems to me) reductionistic definition.  You say, for example:  "Despite the fact that #2 significantly moves science forward, hypothesis testing is where science differs from all other fields of study." 
 
 
 
Really?  Is that always true?  Is it true in every branch of what we call science?  How about in theoretical physics and string theory?  Read Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics" if you really think so.  What do you mean by "testing" anyway?  Is falsifiability the same as "testing?"  If so, in what sense is "testing" a meaningful idea, given that most meta-theories (including Darwinism) can't really be conclusively falsified, but rather tend to get replaced with equally provisional meta-theories?  Is it really true that all other fields of knowledge -- say, theology -- don't engage in any sort of "hypothesis testing" at all?  
 
 
 
Dave O. (ASA member)
 
  
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 26 17:33:03 2007