At 02:10 PM 06/06/2000 -0400, Bertvan@aol.com wrote:
>Steve C:
> >Why do we have to recognize these qualities of life through
> >science. Scientists do not ignore them, we just have no experiments to
> >test them with. They are better appreciated and understood using other
> >ways of knowing.
>
>Bertvan:
>Hi Steve, If science has no way of dealing with those aspects of life that
>distinguish it from non-life (free will, consciousness, intelligence,
>purpose, creativity, spontaneity and choice), it might be prudent for science
>to be a little more tolerant of other peoples thoughts on the subject.
Don't attribute to science what some scientists may do. If some scientists
are incorrect in their view of what science can and cannot address, it
doesn't pay to jump on the same band wagon and make similar claims (albeit
in the opposite direction). Thus, if Dawkins wants to make the
metaphysical claim that science disproves God, it does't help to make the
same mistake and claim that ID is science. Both are metaphysical paradigms
outside the capability of scientific investigation.
>As it
>is, biology is the only science that asks the courts to enforce a ruling that
>only their explanation of life's diversity be taught in schools.
In all other fields, the practioners define the state of knowledge for the
field. It is not done by popular referendum. This is a proper position
for science to take, simply because there is no other scientific
explanation for life's diversity. Note that this statement is quite a bit
different from yours above. Scientists, by and large, do not want to
prohibit other explanations of life's diversity in schools. They only want
to control what is taught in their classrooms, this is appropriate. If you
want to teach ID in a philosophy or religious classroom, go ahead.
By the same token, it would be inappropriate for science to dictate what is
taught in a religious studies course. Let's let the religious folk
determine what they teach.
>Perhaps ways will be found to test some of the qualities of living things.
>We will never see free will, just as we will never see gravity. However I
>think evidence might be developed showing that free will can affect the
>world of matter. In my opinion bio feed back has already shown that.
We must keep in mind that science only studies what science can
study. While this may sound circular, it is important to keep in
mind. Thus, science cannot study microbial life on mars for two reasons,
we have nothing to study and there may not be any life on mars. The first
is sufficient to say that the study of martian microbiology is not science,
but the second means that it could become science under the proper
circumstances. Also note, that becuase of the first constraint, we can say
that martian microbiology is not science, it does not stop anyone from
pondering the second constraint. And we do. We discuss the biological,
ethical, theological and philosophical ramifications of finding
extraterrestial life. So the fact that martian microbiology is not science
does not preclude the study of the topic, it only admits that it is not
ready for scientific inquiry. Such is the case with ID.
>Further, I would argue there is only one "way of knowing". Some things we
>"know" can be proved and others can't, but even beliefs that were once
>accepted as proved were later replaced with more sophisticated
>understanding.
Most philosophers would disagree with your notion that there is only one
way of knowing. Also, "proof" of what we know is no guarantee that it will
later be replaced with a new truth. I can't prove that I am not now
dreaming, but I know that I am not. I cannot prove that I love my cat, but
I know that I do. Those are one way of knowing. Then, I can do an
experiment in the lab to see if a gene carries a specific mutation when
cells behave abnormally. That is another way of knowing.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 06 2000 - 14:30:01 EDT