Re: Fall of evolved man
Adrian Teo (AdrianTeo@mailhost.net)
Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:54:09 -0800
Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> At 11:52 AM 11/10/97 -0800, Adrian Teo wrote:
> >Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> >> I do not think any Christian should be afraid of where good science leads
> >> us. Christ said He is the Truth and so every search in any subject matter
> >> will invariably lead to Christ--"....in whom are hidden all the treasures of
> >> wisdom and knowledge." Col. 2:2. There should be little disagreement on the
> >> evidence, but there can be much disagreement on how the data should be
> >> interpreted.
> >In your earlier posts it appears that you consider experimental science
> >(particularly physics) to be superior to historical and nonexperimental
> >social sciences. May I suggest that this definition of "real" science is
> >somewhat narrow?
> >Experimental science involves an inductive approach, which can never
> >lead to 100% certainty in knowledge. I would suggest that all of science
> >and rational inquiry is filtered through our interpretive lenses, and
> >all can lead us toward the Truth, albeit imperfectly, and can never be
> >exhuastive. To claim that one is superior to another requires that you
> >demonstrate how one can be more independent of interpretation and bias
> >than the others.
> Dear Adrian,
> Please include my post on your comments of it so that the issues are clear.
> The comments I made is that subjects like social science and political
> science should drop the word science and replace them with words like
> studies. It is clear that the borrowing of the word science is to enhance
> such studies to a status which they do not have. My comments were meant more
> to clarify the subject matter and the way truth is established in different
> forms of knowledge. It was not meant to denigrate any human effort to know.
> The heavy, meaningful reliance of physics on mathematics is something that
> is lacking in political and social studies. It is true that all the sciences
> want to emulate physics. Of course, it is a historical accident that physics
> developed first as the study of Nature with mathematics as the language of
> that science.
The point that I was trying to make was that there are other, equally
valid sources of knowledge besides highly quantifiable studies on
subjects matter such as physics, and paleontology is one of them.
Science does not equal quantification and/or experimentation. Science is
fundamentally a method of inquiry that is much broader in scope. I can
show you many articles published in the social sciences that are based
on sound statistical inferential methodology. These are all rightfully
called science in the sense that they share the same method of inquiry,
involving the generation and testing of falsifiable hypotheses,
replication, and theory-revision. And much as you would like to believe,
the other disciplines are not trying to emulate physics in other to gain
some illusory status. What they are trying to do is to borrow
strategies, techniques, data-modeling approaches from different
disciplines which are appropriate for investigating the subject matter.