RE: [asa] PvM's View of What Science IS

Dick, I like what you wrote about what science is. However, what is the
subject matter of science?

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 2:14 PM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] PvM's View of What Science IS

I'll offer an explanation of what science is in my humble opinion and
Pim or anybody else can correct me if he/she likes.

In addition to science consisting of a body of knowledge, it is also a
process. Science is a method or system by which we make observations,
gather data, formulate theories, arrive at conclusions, etc. A method
can be labeled "scientific" if it adheres to certain commonly accepted
rules that have been established to insure accuracy.

We might make an observation, or witness a phenomenon. We may be able
to make repeated observations and record precise details as to what we
observed, although often times we do not have that luxury. We can make
wild or educated guesses as to the cause of a particular phenomenon.
Plain old guesswork may be used in the initial phase, and trial balloons
sent up.

The next phase may involve gathering data, or conducting experiments.
Using observations or experimental results, some of the derived data
points may be connected up yielding one or more working hypotheses,
which can then be tested. Some initial suggested answers usually are
found wanting, and are discarded. Normally one or more of the working
hypotheses garners support as other researchers begin to accept it as
plausible, elevating it to the status of theory.

Although a working hypothesis connects up some, most, or all of the data
points, it needs to attain a measure of acceptability before it can be
called a theory. Theories can be tested by themselves, or against one
another. When one theory gains virtually universal acceptance it
becomes a law.

If general acceptance is gained, displacing all competing explanations
in prominence, this theory may gain status as a paradigm. Among
scientists and academics, biological evolution is the commonly accepted
paradigm today that even withstands contrary evidence as long as no
superior solution can replace it.

An acceptable explanation should be falsifiable. That means there must
be a way available to try to disprove it, usually through some testing
procedure or series of observations. If there is no possible way to
invalidate something, it falls into another category, such as an
undeniable fact, an illogical conjecture, an outright lie, or a bona
fide miracle.

Science involves careful observations, natural explanations, rational
inferences, and deductive reasoning. Good experiments, quantifiable
results, impartiality, and objectivity are desirable ingredients in good
science. Experiments must be repeatable and verifiable, results should
be reliable, and tests of validity are applied. And this entire process
is called "science."

Dick Fischer

Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 6:16 PM
To: PvM; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] PvM's View of What Science IS

Strike two, Pim van Meurs.

If 'what science IS' is irrelevant, then you have NO business, and NO
authority whatsoever to say what is or is not 'scientifically' vacuous.
If it were in a court of law, your testimony would be struck from the
record - as if you had never testified. You are on the verge of
revealing your irrelevance if you cannot or will not answer.

Last chance Pim. Do you really have NO view of what science IS? Your
geology/oceanography degree seems to be hanging in the balance. What
makes your views 'scientific'?

Respectfully awaiting a positive response,

G.A.

PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:

Irrelevant my dear friend, totally irrelevant.

On 9/15/07, Gregory Arago wrote:
> Strike one, Pim.

> If necessary, please re-read the OP and then actually address the
question - no need to discuss intelligent design theories or divert,
distract, wander away. The title of the thread makes the question rather
obvious. If you won't or can't answer it or make a positive contribution
to ASA's knowledge, then it appears Peter Loose's opinion of you is
justified. Why not just share your perspective?

> What, in your view, IS science, Pim?

________________________________

All new Yahoo! Mail
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40705/*http:/mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.in
tl=ca>

________________________________

Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 17 14:52:08 2007