Moorad wrote that "If something cannot, in principle, be measured by
physical devices, then that something is outside the purview of science.
This gives a clear demarcation of what science is and what it is not."
Plantinga writes, in the ARN journal recently, about "the
demarcationists," those who define "science" to their own individual
tastes, and remarks that this is OK as it tightly defines something but
is less than useful in understanding it. He suggests, rather, that
"science is what scientists do" is a vastly more useful definition. Which
got me to thinking (bad idea, some will say).
Suppose the New Age movement (whatever it might be) sweeps over all
civilization so that even scientists find themselves, regularly, both as
individuals and in group situations, deliberately positing and allowing
for the supernatural in their experiments and theories. Crystal and
pyramid studies are now part of every respectable physics curriculum.
In this gedanken and tragic world, Plantinga would, I guess, still argue
that what scientists are doing is "science." I don't think I'd agree. I
think Moorad and I would be on the same page here. But it still comes
down to definitions, and one does not want to be known as a
"demarcationist. I think.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 27 2001 - 16:54:11 EST