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

I can accept your description Dick

Peter, Nothing I stated depends on an understanding of what is science
or what is the purpose of science. Now I understand that ID proponents
like to hide between the demarcation argument and thus much like
Haarsma, rather than asserting that ID is not science, I argue, in the
Laudan fashion that ID is vacuous or in Lakatosian fashion that ID is
a degenerative research programme. I have provided sufficient examples
how I reached my conclusion thus I understand you reluctance to
address them.
In order to avoid an unnecessary standoff I am willing to let you
define science. Then we can proceed without further obstacles to show
that ID under most reasonable definitions of science, remains
scientifically vacuous.

Looking forward to you presenting your concept of science so we can
finally explore the somewhat unrelated issue of ID being a concept
that lacks in relevance, and is by any standard, a degenerative
research programme.

What do you think? Fair enough?

Alexanian

> The reason religion is not the purview of science is that it deals with the exercise of human free
> will, which cannot be reduced to the purely physical.

The reason why religion is not the purview of science is because it
deals with issues of faith where lack of evidence is not considered
relevant. However, your 'argument' that religion is not the purview of
science because it deals with free will seems flawed, and in fact,
your claim that free will cannot be reduced to the purely physical
lacks in supporting evidence, seems contradicted by what we do know,
and fails to accurately define both free will and 'purely physical'.

As such, I cannot accept your claim.

On 9/17/07, Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> As all this depends on a mutually agreed and shared understanding of 'what
> is science?' and 'what is the purpose of science?' then absent such a
> definition/statement/understanding progress will be, sadly, forever
> impossible.
>
> That crucial basic question cannot be avoided.
>
> To the extent that opposing world-views means anything given this
> fundamental uncertainty, then of course, that is actually declaring - it all
> depends on your point of view? That's not science by any definition I
> submit.

On 9/17/07, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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 23:27:44 2007