[asa] What is science to Alexanian.

Alexanian,

I think you and I likely have differing views of what is science and I almost think you restrict your science to those sciences like physics or chemistry. To press the point would any of the following be science in your view? If possible indicate why or why not.

Observation science (based on radio tracking and lots of observations) that establishes the social structure of cougar?

Developing the model of DNA by Watson and Crick.

Describing the historic (settlement time) range of rattlesnakes based on death records and historic accounts of bites [bit harder evidence]. See http://homepages.dordt.edu/~mahaffy/rattle/Evidence_Rattlesnakes_Mitchell_Mower.doc I am trying to understand what parts of biology would not be science and what parts would be, by your definition. As I indicated in an earlier post observational science and some areas of geology (stratigraphy) and a different beastie than others. I don't think that makes them non science but I am curious where and why you draw the lines you do.

>>> "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> 09/18/07 7:33 AM >>>
I personally would not characterize psychology, social and related studies as scientific. Let us face it, if one uses his/her brain to study something that does not make it scientific. The subject matter of these studies is indeed the human being. This remained me of forensic science where one uses the results of the experimental sciences, viz. chemistry, physics, experimental biology, etc., and one notion that comes out is profiling. You can call that science or scientific if you like but results of profiling are not ironclad since they often fail.

 
Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Sent: Tue 9/18/2007 12:36 AM
To: pvm.pandas@gmail.com
Cc: dickfischer@verizon.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] PvM's View of What Science IS

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:27:01 -0700 PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> writes:
responding to Alexanian:
>
> 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.
>
This allows psychology, sociology and related studies to be scientific
despite the fact that they deal with the activities of human beings. As
to religion dealing "with issues of faith where lack of evidence is not
considered relevant," this sounds like the misquotation of Tertullian, "I
believe because it is impossible." However, what is considered nonsense
is not believed in any religion that I have encountered, and I have
taught the history of religion. The faiths are internally consistent, or
are held to be so.

By the way, Tertullian's point was that the gospel story is true because
its claims would not be invented, they are too extreme for fiction.
Dave (ASA)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

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 08:59:49 2007