JB: >> I don't see "science" as a "search for truth." That is the
job of the philosopher. <<
DT:>>An interesting statement. It is consistent with the idea that
science is a "game" - but not easy to harmonise with the idea
that God has, in some way, revealed himself in the natural world.
No disagreement from me on this. Only I will choose to call such
thinking "philosophy" and not "science." In this stance, I am, I think, in
sync with a vast majority of others. That is not to say that being in sync with
others
is necessary, if it compromises something important. But I will
assert that it simply sharpens the issue(s) a little and
avoids unnecessary confrontations.
DT:>>It is worth noting, in passing, that Whewell DID perceive a
difference between the empirical and historical sciences: he
coined the term "palaeteiology" which refers to that branch of
science which seeks to study origins and past historical events.
Interesting. I had not run into this particular jaw-breaker before!
DT:>> There is reason to believe that Copernicus would not have been
pleased to see Osiander's presentation of his hypothesis.
Copernicus thought that his heliocentric model was TRUE, as did
Rheticus. Osiander was adopting a compromise
position ...
Yes, I know of this, and your observation seems possible, though unproven.
What this means is also that the issue we now discuss
has been a "live: one for many years! In any event, what remains
is one argument "in my corner," regardless of who wrote it.
JB: >> I have a gut fear that should Phil, and Norm, and others
ever be successful, it will open up science to all sorts of
nonsense. <<
DT:>>There are risks with this approach, but there are equally risks
of limiting explanatory models to those acceptable to naturalism.
Furthermore, if science is a "game", why does this discussion
matter? Why can't we play to different rules to those defined
by the philosophical naturalists?
Of course, every person is free to "do science" in any way
he chooses. ICR is an example of that. Getting one's views
accepted -- even published -- is quite something else! Does anyone
know of ANY scientific paper, published in the refereed scholarly
journals, which "brings the gods" into the theoretical causation
model? I think there are 0 to be found. AT least in this century.
JB: >> Part of the rebuttals I make to this is to put science
(properly) in its place. Based on PN, it cannot ever assert PN.
I think that's proper and best. <<
DT:>>This is helpful. I can see more clearly how your arguments
cohere. But one of my continuing concerns is that this leads to a
"science with unrecognisable gaps". The gaps are real - but the
commitment to naturalism means that the gaps can never be
recognised. This hinders understanding of the real world.
Only if you accept the claims of some scientists, such as Atkins, quoted
here in the last day or so, that "real world understanding" is to be
achieved only through "science." I will assert that "real world understanding"
is also to be achieved through other means of thinking/investigation; I suspect
you will concur (in contrast to the scientism of Atkins).
The best "science" can ever do is present a plausible natural explanation
of origins -- it can never prove that explanation is "true," nor even that it
is "the best," but only that it is "the best natural explanation we now have
on the table." Newton's mechanics were that once; superceded
by Einstein's work; superceded by quantum mechanics; possibly superceded
(in the future) by something else!
Darn! Wish I could find that Crick quotation! Oh well. Best...
Burgy