>On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Susan Brassfield wrote:
>
>> > One small bit of editing by the Kansas board has been overlooked. The
>> >board changed the definition of science from "the search for natural
>> >explanations" the wording preferred by the National Academy of
>> >Sciences to the search for logical explanations.
>
>> the search for logical explanations is *philosophy* the search for natural
>> explanations is *science*. Logic floats on premises. Something that seems
>> perfectly logical may not be the case. (All men must die. Socrates is a
>> woman. Therefore Socrates will never die.)
>
Tom Pearson wrote:
>As a philosopher, and emphatically not a working scientist, allow me to make
>two comments.
>
>Your "perfectly logical" example above is perfectly invalid. Your first
>premise is "All men [p] must die [q]," which is equivalent to "All p are
>q." Then your second premise is "Socrates [r] is a woman [s]," which is
>equivalent to "All r is s." You now have four terms in your syllogism,
>meaning that you cannot derive any conclusion at all; in fact, you have no
>coherent argument whatsoever. You should have stopped with your
>observation that logic floats on premises.
my husband studies the details of this kind of stuff. Obviously philosophy
is not a venereal disease. :-)
>But this is a quibble. I agree wholeheartedly with your substantive
>point.
thank you!
>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.
no kidding. I think they did it because you have to get rid of those pesky
observations. I've seen several creationists try desperately to dismiss
actual evidence. After all, evolution is supposed to just be an atheistic
philosophy, not a science with supporting evidence.
>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.
:-) I think the Kansas scientists prefer hard evidence over philosophy even
more strenuously than the ones in Missouri
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 09 2000 - 15:21:41 EDT