On 06 Jan 96 12:54:21 EST you wrote:
SJ>"His justification is that it is part of the "game" of science. My
>question is, since when is it right to teach what is not true, just
>because that is the rules of a "game", called "science", that
>materialistic-naturalists have made up?"
JB>People made up the rules. Your modifier is a pejorative. I
>have previously cited Whewell's comments on them.
No "people" who hold to a *materialistic-naturalistic* philosophy made
up the rules of the current version of the "game" called "science", in
order to exclude the supernatural as a possible explanation. This is
OK where there was no supernatural involvements (ie. in the normal
operation of the cosmos), but it is not OK where there was
supernatural involvement (ie. in the origin events of the cosmos -
first matter, first life, first of "kinds", etc).
JB>When is it right to teach what is not true? Because it is
>a game. And even "untrue" theories can be -- often are --
>useful. WHat they predict -- they predict. What they do not
>predict -- that becomes the next change to the scientific
>paradigm. In the meantime, we all benefit from the
>technological fallout!
Agreed. This is no problem when not discussing *origins* and if it is
made clear that these theories are merely useful and not true.
JB>Atoms are not "little round balls." But that theory was highly
>useful for a long time.
See above. It is made quite clear that atoms are not really balls, but
it is not made clear that life did not really originate from
non-life. From my daughter's Biology textbook:
"CHAPTER 22
Origins of Life
Your study of this chapter will be complete when you can:
1. Trace the steps by which chemical evolution produced the
protocell.
..Today we do not believe that life arises spontaneously from nonlife
and we say that "life comes only from life." But if this is so, how
did the first form of life come about? We can assume that the first
form of life was very simple-a single cell (or cells) that could grow,
reproduce, and mutate. Since it was the very first living thing, it
had to come from nonliving chemicals."
(Mader S., "Biology", Wm. C. Brown: Indiana, Third Edition, 1990,
p328,329)
I suggest that 99% of students would interpret this as meaning that
life really did spontaneously arise from non-life, which we both
believe is not true.
JB>Elements are stable & do not change. Again, false. Not true. But
>that theory was also highly useful in separating "alchemy" from
>real chemistry!
No problem. Again this is not *origins*, but *operations*.
JB>Planets attract one another gravitationally. Nope. We know
>(thanks to Einstein) better now. But what fantastic advances were made
>under the original theory!
>
>The list goes on...
Yes, and you do not grapple with the real issue: 1. the game of
science is OK if it is made quite clear that it is only a game, based
on arbitrary but useful rules, and it may approximate but never
equals, absolute truth. 2. that normal science deals with the
regular, repeatable, observable, testable *operations* of the cosmos -
it cannot pronounce on the unique, unrepeatable, unobservable,
untestable *origin* of that cosmos.
I thought we had beaten this to death, Burgy? :-)
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------