RE: [asa] What is science to Alexanian.

Hi James,

Astronomy is an observational science but of purely physical entities.
The living poses a problem in observational studies owing to the nature
of free will. For instance, in a crowd, a mob is an observational fact
but cannot be studied systematically, theories created about them, and
predications made.

Recently there was a study about the downside of diversity by Harvard
professor Robert Putnam
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_
of_diversity/ How final are such studies and would you elevate them to
the category of a theory of human behavior? One can say the same
regarding the social or behavioral studies of animals in the wild.

The study of the molecular structure of DNA is pure science, which
incidentally deals not with human beings but a physical aspect of them.

There is a phenomenological science here involved if you like but I
would not put it in the same footing as that of the experimental, hard
sciences.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of James Mahaffy
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 8:59 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [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_Mitchel
l_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.

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 14:32:56 2007