At 04:55 PM 05/02/2000 -0400, Bertvan@aol.com wrote:
> >>Susan:
> >> >you are assuming that evolution has something to do with religion. It
> >> >doesn't. "Materialistic-naturalism" is required for science. There's no
>way
> >< >to conduct science without that assumption. Or, at least, neither you nor
> >> >Johnson has come up with any viable suggestions as to how one would go
> >> >about conducting science without that assumption.
> >
> >>Bertvan:
> >>I respectfully disagree. An assumption of "materialistic-naturalism"
> is not
> >>required. One can just as easily do science under an assumption of design.
> >>Science is the process of observation and accurate measurements. Those who
> >>assume design are, in my estimation, more likely to decipher the details of
> >>the design than those who insist no design can possibly exist
>
>Steve Clark:
> >Bertvan, do you believe that observation and accurate measurement is an
> >adequate definition of science? If so, do you believe that cooking and
> >sewing and accounting and football are science?
>
>
>
>Hi Steve Clark,
>While observation and measurement is what scientists mainly do, I'd prefer
>"an attempt to describe reality" as a definition of science. There may be
>other definitions, and I'm willing to consider them. (The meaning of your
>comment about cooking and football eludes me.)
Hi Betvan
n your earlier quote, you said that "Science is the process of observation
and accurate measurements." When questioned whether this was sufficient to
define science you altered your definition and said that science is "an
attempt to describe reality". In the first case your definition is based
on method and in the second it is based on subject matter (reality).
Let's explore your second definition My question here is similar to the
one I posed earlier. Is your second definition an adequate definition of
science? If so, please explain whether you think that literature, art,
philosophy, theology and metaphysics are science (don't they each attempt
to describe reality?).
As you will see from these questions, the demarcation between science and
nonscience is tricky to describe. But this point of demarcation keeps
coming up in the debate over evolution and ID. I think that it is
important to clearly understand this issue and what one means by
"science". It is interesting that many people here want to strictly define
evolution before proceeding in the debate. I believe that it is more
important to define science before proceeding.
My point about football and cooking was that both involve measurement and
observation.
>Are you of the belief that the only a definition of reality which
>specifically excludes plan, purpose or design in nature would be
>"scientific". (Sorry, I've forgotten where you stand on the question of ID.)
> In any case, while neither philosophy might be provable, one
> description of
>reality is more accurate than the other. Perhaps we will only be able to
>determine the relative merits of materialism and ID by the results which they
>produce. Materialism gave us Freud, Marx, Darwinism and E.O. Wilson. I
>wonder what ID will produce? Don't cite the accomplishments of physics and
>astronomy. They have been straying from strict materialism ever since
>Einstein.
>
>bertvan
It sounds as if you have some complaint about physics and astronomy because
they stray from strict materialism. Since you favor the nonmaterialist
claims of ID, why do you complain about physics? Perhaps I just missed
your point here.
Cheers,
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 03 2000 - 11:38:08 EDT