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

Please excuse that I will not have time to follow up on the discussions, probably for a couple of days at least. Let me only agree with George's Off List post that somehow made it to the ASA list, that a Strike Three for Pim was called. Pim's statement that 'ID is scientifically vacuous' is itself vacuous - without content - because Pim provides NO POSITIVE REFERENCE against which the proposed 'science of ID' could be compared. As George wrote 'that simply doesn't work.'
   
  The claim by Pim 'ID is scientifically vacuous' is hereby disqualified from the ASA list. For me, that is the end of the story and Pim's negative contribution has been adequately exposed.
   
  Since George and I have differences of opinion about science and nature, e.g. as for the legitimate the place of disciplines like biology, physics, anthropology, culturology, sociology, etc. in the constellation (or hierarchy) of the contemporary academy (and I didn't include theology as 'in' the academy simply because in Russia where I live it is mainly not 'in' the academy but in the seminaries), it is something encouraging to me that we do actually agree on this. Likewise, let me affirm that 'taunting' is not appreciated, especially on a list like this where honest, open and critical discussion takes place by experienced scholars and scientists with the appropriate amounts of salt displayed, so that we should be without fault (Philippians 2: 15). If Pim (or for that matter a certain someone in England with a cynical sense of humour) cannot aspire to a higher level of dialogue, more respectful than attackful or taunting (e.g. calling someone's view of science
 'worthless'), perhaps this list isn't the place for him.

  Warm regards for your discussions of what science is and isn't, while future posts should probably change the title to 'What Science IS' rather than 'PvM's View of What Science IS' because the latter title has been exhausted.
   
  Gregory

   
   
  George Murphy wrote:
          OFF LIST
   
  Pim -
   
  I am in fairly broad agreement with you about the issues related to ID but, after observing the non-exchange on the "PvM's View of What Science IS" thread, I have to say that you're putting your case in a rather poor light. You are insisting that you can show (or have shown) that ID is "scientifically vacuous" without being willing to say what you understand "science" to be & that simply doesn't work. It would be OK if there were general agreement on what science is but it's clear that that isn't so, especially on this list. If you don't want to discuss that, fine, but then what are you doing on the asa list? I'm afraid I get the impression that you just enjoy taunting people like Gregory or Peter who disagree with you
   
  Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

       
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 18 03:49:15 2007