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

If you don't mind another 2 cents...

In May, there was a very lengthy Religion and Science thread (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/51709-science-religion-culled-earth-not-center-thread.html) in a popular science forum, www.bautforum.com, which included a wide range of philosophical and religious views. The goal was to address their interaction: overlapping or non-overlapping magistera. After about 1400 posts, much had been covered. For the prolific reader, it should be found interesting.

I see science as having carved out a niche in the subjective realm, like a cave in a mountain. Its boundaries extend only to the edge of its objective realm, but this self-impossed limitiation produces great efficacy for us. There are times, however, that science can have influence upon a subjective claim.

My nutshell view, post #220 in that thread, as to how science and religion can interact, the "green rules", is as follows:

1) The objective elements of any subjective claim are open to scientific scrutiny.

2) The subjective claim is also affected by the manner in which the subjective claim uses the objective claim for basis/support/justification.

3) Science has influence upon subjective claims in proportion to the weight science can bear upon the objective elements within them. This "weight" is a product of the strength that science has in its respective area of knowledge and the amount of exposure provided by the objective elements within the subjective claim.

4) Subjective claims have no direct influence on science.

GeorgeA "Coope"
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dick Fischer
  To: ASA
  Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 3:31 PM
  Subject: RE: [asa] PvM's View of What Science IS

  Hi Moorad:

  I think scientific methods can be applied to many aspects of life. When I was in Air Force ROTC we learned techniques of problem solving which were very similar to methods and techniques used in applied science. Personally I think religion is beyond the realm because religion involves miracles and miracles are outside the bounds of explanation. Then you can get into "hard science" like physics versus "soft science" like psychology and pretty soon we'll end up like the centipede that ended up in a ditch when he tried to figure out how he was able to walk. I'd like to avoid that slippery slope if you don't mind.

  Dick Fischer

  Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

  Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

  www.genesisproclaimed.org

  -----Original Message-----
  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
  Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 2:51 PM
  To: Dick Fischer; ASA
  Subject: 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

  -----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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  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 18:02:11 2007