bob@chemstor.UUCP (Robert Weigel) (06/16/87)
>From: cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI >As far as the question of what science is, I suggest you study it. There is >a large body of work on science and scientific method. I also recommend >reading McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 529 F. Supp. 1255 (1982) for >some interesting arguments about what science is, and a very well done >analysis of the arguments. Try reading Popper. I don't have to define science; >it's already been defined. And one property of science is that it does not >consider non-falsifiable theories as its territory. Included in this class >are supernatural phenomenon. God is supernatural. God is not a scientific >concept. Even if God does exist (and I will not say what my opinion on the >matter is here), God's existence is not scientific concept. >> >...... >Provide me again with the words, and I will. And I do not disagree that there >may be more to it than that. I don't necessarily agree either. However, science >is not concerned with questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" >...... >creationism can never be considered science by anybody who understand it. The >Bible just doesn't cut it scientifically speaking. Well, I won't go on. Try >reading the case I mentioned above. >-- > -- Chris. (cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu) Thanks Chris. I appreciate this more explicit response. It is rather interesting that I did graduate as a science teacher. In preparation, I did do a bit of study on this matter. It is important that we realize that people with faults just like us write definitions, but science demands that nobody will pre-define science for me. I explained in a response to another recent article, my reasons for defining science as I do. The discrepency between my definition and the "accepted" one is fundementally that theirs limits observations data to "physical" sensors. (ie. ears, eyes, etc.). Such science denies information that can totally change the "experimental output". If our "science" is correct, then it cannot examine questions such as "what is the meaning of life", because there is none! A restatement of what I said before should explain why. ~"Let us assume that the current state of all matter and energy in the known and unknown universe, is this way because matter and energy at some time dt ago followed the laws of this universe (again, known or unknown laws). Perhaps real randomness is present,...it doesn't really change the outcome of this viewpoint. If this is so, then the thing I am typing right now are also a result of things totally out of my control. ( Can I change history????? Can I change the laws??? How about manipulating random events!!? [that's a cute thought])" Therefore, if you believe in science as you say you do, I will view your next response just as you must. (Something that just had to happen.) If, however, you'd like to make a break from futility, e-mail the words that you CHOSE to respond with, since as I said, most have made known that they will dogmatically hold to the science definition laid out for them. I hope this is the last public response I will have to make on this issue.
cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) (06/27/87)
I'm not a very frequent reader of the net anymore (especially since I've been deluged with other committments lately), so please forgive the slow response. In article <291@chemstor.UUCP>, bob@chemstor.UUCP (Robert Weigel) writes: > Thanks Chris. I appreciate this more explicit response. It is rather > interesting that I did graduate as a science teacher. That's interesting. I was a history major with an emphasis in science and technology. > It is important that we realize that people > with faults just like us write definitions, but science demands that nobody will > pre-define science for me. I explained in a response to another recent article, > my reasons for defining science as I do. The discrepency between my definition > and the "accepted" one is fundementally that theirs limits observations data > to "physical" sensors. (ie. ears, eyes, etc.). Such science denies information > that can totally change the "experimental output". If our "science" is correct, > then it cannot examine questions such as "what is the meaning of life", because > there is none! I will respond to this section on the net since it may be of interest to others. I will not comment any further on this subject in these groups. I reccomend redirecting this to the philosophy group. First of all, if we all have different definitions of science, then the term becomes much too semantically ambiguous to be useful. It's a like having the standard definition of a fork (a pronged eating utensil), and somebody coming along and saying "no! it's a smooth, bowl-like utensil with a handle on it (spoon)!" It doesn't work. And nobody just sat down and said "This is what science is from now on". It's been the work and observation for many philosphers and scientists for centuries from Bacon to Kuhn. Not only that, if I understand you correctly, you say that science demands that it cannot be defined for you. However, if it demands that, then it must already be to some extent defined. Now, perhaps my suggestion that science is completey defined is extreme (but it got my basic point across). However, I can think of nobody in the field who will deny my assertion that the domain of science is natural phenomena. God is by definition supernatural. He (or She) therefore fall outside of the realm of science. The supernatural is the realm of theology and philosophy. Similarly, the meaning of life is also a philosophical question. Furthermore, science does not purport to be the method by which all questions can be answered. As I mentioned before, it works within the realm of nature, and that means observable phenomena. Recall that one of the basic requirements of science is falsifiability. Your definition could allow anything. What kind of reliable information can you gain from non-sensory data? I submit, none. I have bunches of theological disputes with fundemantalist Christians. However, there is no way to really prove or disprove either side of a theological dispute. Can you imagine somebody claiming "well, God told me so" as support for a scientific theory? I would not want the medicine I rely on to heal me when I'm sick to be based on that type of research. Not only that, what if somebody said "Well, God told me this other thing"? You can get stuck in a sort of Oral Roberts Syndrome ("God is going to call me home if you don't accept my paper in JAMA" :-)). Sceince and religion don't have to clash; indeed, since they cover mutually exclusive territory, they shouldn't. Religion may provide ethics which will guide the scientist in as much as what areas to experiement in, what projects to get involved in, etc. (work in genetics, or chemical weapons development, for example). It may even suggest that more compassionate methods of running experiements on animals be attempted if possible (a very hairy issue which I will avoid now). However, that does not make it permissible to inject religion (read supernatural, non-falisifiable concepts) into scientific methodolgy and interpretation. I hope this describes satisfactorly my position. Religious beliefs injected into "the experimental output" will damage the integrity of the scientific method, and complete throw off the accuracy of the results. The two domains (sceince and religion) are separate, and that is as it should be. -- -- Chris. (cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu)
werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) (07/07/87)
Just so we deal in no uncertain terms:
Here is the best definition of the domain of science that I have
ever heard formulated:
"Science deals in disprovable assertions. If something can not
be, in theory at least, disproven, by experiment and/or observation, then
it is not in the domain of science."
Correlary: nothing can be proven in science, only supported or
suggested. However, every good scientific theory suggests situations
which would be impossible if the theory were valid, and hence provides
a means to disprove itself.
--
Craig "Baby Doc" Werner (future MD/PhD, 3 years down, 4 to go)
werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine
(1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
"Morphology is part science and part 'Ipse Dixit.' "ekwok@mipos3.UUCP (Gibbons v. Ogden) (07/08/87)
In article <1189@aecom.YU.EDU> version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site mipos3.UUCP mipos3!intelca!oliveb!pyramid!ctnews!sri-unix!rutgers!seismo!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!pwa-b!philabs!aecom!werner werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: > > Just so we deal in no uncertain terms: > > Here is the best definition of the domain of science that I have >ever heard formulated: > > "Science deals in disprovable assertions. If something can not >be, in theory at least, disproven, by experiment and/or observation, then >it is not in the domain of science." > > Correlary: nothing can be proven in science, only supported or >suggested. However, every good scientific theory suggests situations >which would be impossible if the theory were valid, and hence provides >a means to disprove itself. > That's very nice, Craig. But, is "disproving" a scientific concept? What, then, philosophically, is a "disproof" or a "disproof" of the "contrary" (presumably, a "proof")? If your theory is scientific (the theory that science deals with disprovable assertions), then exists some assertions in the theory which is disprovable. But then these assertions deal with the possibility of disprove, implying the impossibility of disprove in these assertions, which is a contradiction, and so the theory is not scientific. Alas, this is hairy-er than Vatican III, whenever it comes. --
carole@rosevax.UUCP (07/08/87)
In article <1189@aecom.YU.EDU>, werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: > > Just so we deal in no uncertain terms: > > Here is the best definition of the domain of science that I have > ever heard formulated: > > "Science deals in disprovable assertions. If something can not > be, in theory at least, disproven, by experiment and/or observation, then > it is not in the domain of science." > > Correlary: nothing can be proven in science, only supported or > suggested. However, every good scientific theory suggests situations > which would be impossible if the theory were valid, and hence provides > a means to disprove itself. > Craig, you put quotes around the statement but don't give the author. This sounds very much like Karl Popper, whom I consider one of the sanest people ever to write on philosophy of science. The statement I remember went something like 'A proper scientific hypothesis states the conditions under which it can be disproved.' Would you please give the author and the work in which the statement appeared? Thank you. Carole Ashmore
dsn@mimsy.UUCP (07/09/87)
In article <824@mipos3.UUCP> ekwok@mipos3.UUCP (Gibbons v. Ogden) writes: |>If your theory is scientific (the theory that science deals with |>disprovable assertions), ... It's not a theory, it's a definition. There's a difference. -- Dana S. Nau ARPA & CSNet: dsn@mimsy.umd.edu Computer Sci. Dept., U. of Maryland UUCP: ...!seismo!mimsy!dsn College Park, MD 20742 Telephone: (301) 454-7932
myers@dalcs.UUCP (Eric Myers) (07/11/87)
Could you guys please get this discussion out of talk.rumors!
--
Eric Myers Dept. of Mathematics, Statistics and Computing Science
Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
myers%cs.dal.cdn%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA / dalcs!myers@seismo.UUCP