From: Walter Hicks (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 24 2002 - 21:12:32 EDT
As best I can tell, my understanding of the words "truth" and
"history" are more
in line with the average American -- than that of the learned on this ASA list.
My request is that we "call a spade a spade" and not hide behind new
commonly accepted vocabulary. We would all be better off if we simply
we mean without wordology or cryptology.
My wife and my granddaughter -- upon my (non-leading) questioning -- just gave
the common, dictionary meaning of these words.
As I scientist, I have never become wrapped up in these obtuse
discussions of the
meaning of such simple words --- or at least what they used to be --- before
gathering with ASA .
> In reply to Walter's posting below:
> It is not reasonable to think that people in the past are thinking in the
> same words as we do. "Historical" has a specific meaning now, especially
> for scientists, a meaning that is not shared by everyone. People in the
> past did not think in the same words as we do and some words have other
> meanings. Even when they have approximately the same meaning, a word like
> "history" was not used even some centuries ago in the same way it is now
> used by scientists. God inspired the Bible not to scientists but to
> "ordinary" (let us say people not versed in physics etc.) people. Requiring
> that they must have read the words in the same way as we do is very
> un-scientific. We need language-scientists, philosophy-scientists,
> hsitory-scientists etc. The way the word "science' is used as if it is the
> end of a discussion, forgets that even mathematics (but all science) is
> founded on certain philosphies. Especially the explaining of its results.
> This is my last reply now. I explained my position several times in the
> past, without getting sufficiently founded replies. I got trapped again
> here. I am sorry.
> Walter Hicks writes:
> > Jim Eisele wrote:
> >> I'm realistic enough not to expect agreement. But, the stakes are high,
> >> and some will drop out along the way. My claim is that the Bible is
> >> historical until shown otherwise.
> > I will second this. Why is it not a reasonable position? Is it
>not what we
> > generally follow with respect to scientific theories?
> > Why, I'd bet that even a good lawyer might agree ;-).
> > Walt
Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 24 2002 - 23:45:41 EDT