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

Moorad posted: "I do not equate using human rationality to understand and
solve problems with the scientific method necessarily. The latter needs
the former; however, the latter does not exhaust all the problems that
the human mind is confronted with. In fact, deep fundamental questions
are often not scientific at all in nature. I believe that kinds of
knowledge must be characterized by a subject matter and the subject
matter determines what kind of evidence is used to establish the truth or
falsehood of statements in that particular kind of knowledge. 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. "

I can buy that.

Dave posted: "This allows psychology, sociology and related studies to be
scientific
despite the fact that they deal with the activities of human beings."

Such, when they deal with statistical probabilities, probably qualify.
But I maintain that when they address an individual person, they cannot,
even in principle, predict how that person will decide on something.

Moorad asked (of someone else): "You tell me what is free will."

Free will, which I assert I have, is simply the capability to make a
decision regardless of what "particles are hitting particles" in my
brain. Much of what I do, and I presume that much of what other humans
do, is "go with the flow," and, as such, is probably NOT exercises of
free will. But there are times, and I suspect for most these times might
comes many times during a day, when free will is exercised. That means
simply this -- no scientific investigation, even in principle, could
possibly tell in advance whether I will choose A or B (or something
else).

I attribute to God the fact that I became a Christian at age 31. It was
not my decision -- it was His. But once I was a Christian, it was a
series of the exercise of my free will as to what I would do because of
this new relationship. Knowing very little about t he Christian faith, I
remember pondering this question, and coming up with just two decisions
(to start with). One was that I would be in church Sunday mornings and
two we would begin at once to adhere to the biblical tithe. Other
decisions would come later; two were enough to start with. I had the free
will to decide otherwise.; to add all sorts of auxiliary positions. But I
did not.

Moorad wrote: "I personally would not characterize psychology, social and
related studies as scientific."

While I sympathize with that position, I think it comes down to a simple
question of definition. Most of the world does see them as sciences;
arguing otherwise is just an argument over definitions.

As a physicist who barely made it through a beginning psychology course
at Carnegie Tech in 1952, I did not see it then as "scientific." More as
mumbo jumbo. <G>

Finally: Dave posted (to me): " yours is a common definition, but it
applies to what is better understood as strict determinism, that is,
everything occurs within an inexorable causal nexus. However, my
decisions fall within a causal domain, but it is not inexorable."

I'm sorry. I just do not understand what you are talking about.

"There are some psychologists and sociologists who have claimed that our
decisions are simply part of the inexorable causal nexus, that freedom is
a delusion. But this means that their thoughts are not any more rational
than the flight of a rock (velocity, gravity, air resistance, etc.), and
so without reason. Our reason has to be a kind of initiative cause to
produce rational events."

At least we can agree on this part. <G>

"Indeterminism is a random matter, which cannot produce rational
consequences except by accident--the famous monkeys producing
Shakespeare. It doesn't matter whether it is totally random or occurs
within statistical bounds. If there is a text produced, it is not
detectable by the indeterminate producer."

Again, this seems to be off my point.

My point is this (I may be repeating myself): When I exercise my free
will to choose between A and B, I am doing so non-naturally
(supernaturally, if you prefer that word). No set of observations and
mathematics can, even in principle, predict which I will choose. The
material universe changes in a wholly new direction, and I'm to blame (or
praise).

Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com/one.htm
My review of ONE WORLD, by Polkinghorne

"Any one thing in the creation is sufficient to demonstrate a Providence
to a humble and grateful mind." --Epictetus

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 12:27:24 2007