[Vision2020] Poll on Idahostatesman.com

[Joseph Campbell]

On 10/10/05 2:51 PM, "Tbertruss at aol.com" <Tbertruss at aol.com> wrote:

Ted,

I just wanted to be clear that I did not give a definition of Œscience.¹ I
merely gave one necessary condition for something¹s being a scientific
thesis. I did not give a sufficient condition. Thus, I did not assert that
anything which passed my criterion was a scientific theory, as you suggest
in the first paragraph below.

Otherwise, I agree with much of what you say below.

Joe Campbell

> Ted Moffett wrote:
> 
> It may be impossible to gather empirical evidence that decides with certainty
> the truth value of the proposition that the universe was created by an
> intelligent being.  Even if a proponent of the proposition that the universe
> was created by an intelligent being gladly accepts the condition that if
> empirical evidence to the contrary is gathered, they will abandon the
> proposition, this does not make the proposition "scientific," especially when
> gathering conclusive empirical evidence to decide the proposition may be
> impossible.  
> 
> There are an infinite number of theories than can be generated to explain any
> phenomenon.  The empirically testable theories that also have mathematical or
> logical consistency are theories that can become "science."  Of course there
> are many daunting problems in philosophy of science that make this easy
> definition problematic.  But I if a theory has no practical means of being
> decided by empirical data, or presents extreme mathematical or logical
> inconsistencies or contradictions, the theory will not be accepted as a
> current "scientific" theory, with some exceptions.  Application of Occams
> Razor also is favored in the world of science to avoid the endless variety of
> possible complex speculative theories from creating, to put it simply, a big
> mess.
> 
> If a theory is more speculative/imaginary than based on measurable empirical
> methods of investigation, or does not result in mathematical or logical
> consistency with other accepted theories, nor with itself internally, though
> it may remain possibly true, it will often not receive much attention from the
> scientific community.  Science does have certain "biases."
> 
> Maybe God created the universe and human life.  Maybe aliens landed on Earth
> millions of years ago and genetically engineered human intelligence.  Both of
> these theories are possible.
> 
> How does a science class teach these theories decided by empirical means?
> What replicatable experiments or data gathering do we set up to scientifically
> investigate these claims?  Is there such an abundance of disagreement
> regarding what sort of God may have created the universe (while we still do
> not even understand what our universe is), with such a wide variety of
> possible methods, that there is no well established theory as to how this
> could have happened that fits our scientific understanding of how the universe
> operates, to enable reliable testable means of scientifically deciding the
> matter?
> 
> And consider, if speculative religious theories about the operation of the
> universe must be accepted as scientific theories in science classes, then
> shall churches teach materialistic empirical science as a religious theory?
> 
> Maybe God is a fervent believer in empirical materialistic science, having
> created the universe to function according to these sorts of laws, with no
> "miraculous" intervention on his/her/its part after the creation of the
> universe!  For this God to intervene in his/her/its creation would be
> sacrilege against the very laws of the universe this God established.
> 
> I do not cease to be amazed by the hubris of human beings who imagine they can
> fathom the intentions and actions of a being (God) whom they assert created
> the entire universe, an act which implies a God-mind and capabilities beyond
> anything the human mind can conceive.
> 
> This is like saying a spider understand the intentions of a human being doing
> quantum mechanics.  The spider simply is incapable of understanding in this
> manner, as human beings, speculatively speaking, very well may be incapable of
> understanding the intentions and mind of a being that created the entire
> universe.
> 
> Ted Moffett
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051010/f44c6c2f/attachment-0001.htm