Re: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of

From: Jack Haas <haas.john@comcast.net>
Date: Thu Aug 16 2007 - 09:35:25 EDT

Peter:

We have discussed these foundational definitions on this list time and
time again. Your comment simply
/avoids/ the discussion instead of dealing with the value of ID in the
context of science of the early 21st C.

The fact that a concept exists does not mean it /has /validity.
Careful investigation eliminated polywater,
cold fusion, and the practice of "bleeding" the ill. These notions are
no longer part of science..

I suggest you go to the ASA web site and read a bit at the "About
Science" topic. It might provide the
basics that you desire.

Jack Haas (the other Jack)

Peter Loose wrote:
>
> I see words used in discussion to condemn ID pretty well out of hand as if
> somehow the statement below "ID as not truly science" just dismisses the
> whole field of thought that has now become a world-wide intellectual
> movement.
>
> Isn't it less than rational to claim that academics who have impeccable
> credentials can be so lightly dismissed? If they can be so easily
> dismissed, then so can those who wish to dismiss them. The whole of academia
> tends to be discredited.
>
> It might be helpful if a careful discussion was had that leads to an
> understanding of what we mean by "science". What qualifies as "science"? Who
> says so?
>
> For example, what was understood by the notion of 'science' in the founding
> days of the Royal Society? Can we compare and contrast the historical and
> the contemporary understanding? What are the reasons for the changes, if
> any?
>
> Let's establish some clear foundational definitions of what we mean by
> "science" before we move on.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of PvM
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:14 AM
> To: David Campbell
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is
> the new enemy of
>
>
> On 8/15/07, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I do not have a high regard of the British press
>>>>
>> The arguments about the definition of science and ID as not truly
>> science do seem off the mark and often motivated philosophically
>> rather than scientifically. In reality, the reason ID doesn't belong
>> in science classes is because as currently practiced it is usually
>> scientifically wrong.
>>
>
>
> That's because it lacks a scientific foundation. Have you read Ryan
> Nichols' paper on this topic?
> Ryan Nichols, Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of
> Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical
> quarterly, 2003 ,vol. 77 ,no 4 ,pp. 591 - 611
>
> <quote>
> In my argument against Intelligent Design Theory I will not contend
> that it is not falsifiable or that it implies contradictions. I'll
> argue that Intelligent Design Theory doesn't imply anything at all,
> i.e. it has no content. By 'content' I refer to a body of determinate
> principles and propositions entailed by those principles. By
> 'principle' I refer to a proposition of central importance to the
> theory at issue. By 'determinate principle' I refer to a proposition
> of central importance to the theory at issue in which the extensions
> of its terms are clearly defined.
> I'll evaluate the work of William Dembski because he specifies his
> methodology in detail, thinks Intelligent Design Theory is contentful
> and thinks Intelligent Design Theory (hereafter 'IDT') grounds an
> empirical research program.1 Later in the paper I assess a recent
> trend in which IDT is allegedly found a better home as a
> metascientific hypothesis, which serves as a paradigm that catalyzes
> research. I'll conclude that, whether IDT is construed as a scientific
> or metascientific hypothesis, IDT lacks content.
> </quote>
>
>
>
> See also my thoughts on this matter at
> http://www.talkreason.org/articles/inference1.cfm
>
> Dr Nichols Homepage http://hss.fullerton.edu/philosophy/Nichols.htm
>
> Christine asks a very good question
>
> <quote>Given this understanding, how is it that "natural
> selection" gives rise to life, rather than acting upon
> it? Isn't an existing life form inherent in the
> definition?</quote>
>
> Not really, imperfect replication is all that is really needed, and
> some form of selective pressures.
> Interview http://thesciphishow.com/darwinordesign/?page_id=18
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.19/953 - Release Date: 14/08/2007
> 17:19
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 16 09:36:36 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 16 2007 - 09:36:36 EDT