pearson@panam1.panam.edu writes
in message <Pine.PMDF.3.96.1000808214117.541101693A-100000@panam1.panam.edu>:
>
>
> By far, the most puzzling aspect to me of the entire Kansas curriculum
> proposal was this change from "natural explanations" to "logical
> explanations." Anyone who thinks scientific explanation involves, at some
> point, observation and experiment -- experiential contact with the
> external world -- has to be aghast at this shift. On the other hand, if
> someone believes scientific explanation consists in the manipulation of
> the syntactical relations between formal symbols, they are likely to be
> pleased with the change in wording. Logic has no empirical content
> whatsoever; I can provide all sorts of logically valid accounts that are
> utterly false when applied to the natural world. Logic is a kind of
> language game -- a set of rules for playing with abstract symbols (and
> yes, I have to teach the stuff each semester). Is this really what science
> does? Not even in Kansas, I hope.
And induction, an extremely valuable scientific tool, is not
at all logically valid. So the use of induction by science is
ruled out by the Kansas board as well.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 09 2000 - 12:10:13 EDT