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

Sadly enough Gregory must have missed the posting in which I accepted
proposed definitions of science. Of course, one does not have to
define what is science to show that ID is scientifically vacuous or
that it is a degenerative research programme.

How desperate people are to ignore the arguments, indeed, the meme of
Id being scientifically vacuous is an extremely powerful one as
witnessed by the reaction of some on this board.

It's a sad day for science when people ignore the arguments and
instead decide that the only thing they can do is argue a fallacy
namely that one cannot establish the scientific vacuity of ID, which
is self evident, without defining what is science.
That's like saying that since it is hard to define life, that one
cannot establish what is NOT alive.

Sigh

On 9/18/07, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> 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 10:30:50 2007