Re: T/D #1 (Theistic/Deistic definitions)
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Mon, 27 Oct 1997 12:24:22 -0500 (EST)
At 07:45 AM 10/27/97 -0800, Adrian Teo wrote:
>Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>> All the data in physics can be collected by detectors which interact with
>> the system observed via the basic interactions in nature (gravitational,
>> nuclear and weak/electromagnetic). We do not need humans to collect the
>> data--of course, humans are needed to set up the experiments.
>And to interpret the data.
>> such mere experimental data, by the nature of the detectors, can never say
>> anything about God the Creator. However, the human mind does come into play
>> when it comes to making up a theory to explain the data. Also, the human
>> being is the "detector" of the spiritual realm and it is in this manner that
>> the issue of God being behind the Creation comes into the picture. I am sure
>> that what is true in physics typifies what is true in any other science---I
>> do not mean pseudo sciences like political science, social science, etc.
>"Pseudo sciences ...."???
>Side note: As far as I can tell, the social science theories also
>generate testable, falsifiable hypotheses, and undergo revisions to fit
I know that the term pseudo science is used typically for astrology, etc.
However, I wanted to make a point of the abuses of the usage of the word
"science." Physics is the prototype of all the hard sciences--chemistry,
biology, etc. It is clear that studies of society and politics are also
done with the human mind but the mathematical tools are very rudimentary.
Social and political studies deals with humans who can exercise their free
will and thus make such studies not very amenable to the sophisticated,
mathematical modeling that is used in physics, say, particle physics. It is
clear that such field of studies co-opt terminology to make their studies
seem deeper that they actually are. Mere quantification does not imply deep
understanding of what is going on. At times I feel that the theory of
evolution is one such study. Mere words with no deep mathematical
formulations of the assumed laws supposedly involved. I suppose one would
have to deal at the basic level of the genes to eventually develop a "true"
theory of evolution, if such a thing exists.