RE: [asa] Was Adam a real person? (ancient science)

From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Date: Mon Apr 14 2008 - 00:10:18 EDT

Hi Dave- good points. Now I understand the resistance I received. I think the truth is that science is gray, not black and white. At the birth of Jesus there were the so-called "three wise men." Were they the "scientists" of their day? No, in that they didn't practice science as we do today; yes, in the way that they were the experts in knowledge for their day. Science continually evolves, including the "scientific methods" (such as introducing double-blind tests, placebos, etc.). Maybe there will be such new scientific discoveries in the future (1,000 years from now if the Lord tarries) that they'll consider our modern science today as "pre-scientific" (of course, we can't imagine that, just as those living in the ANE couldn't imagine the state of science we have today).

 

By the way- I haven't heard the donkey parable... but I could guess what it is from your context. I know there are critics for everything. I once learned that after reading an excellent (which I thought was obvious to everyone) news article, then reading the letters to the editor who criticized it. I learned at that moment that even a PERFECT piece of writing will have critics.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 8:42 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Was Adam a real person? (ancient science)

 

Bernie,

The situation is more complex. There have always been explanations,

whether we class them as animistic or practical way back when. It's been

a long time since human beings understood how to knap flints and get

cutting edges, a longer time since they recognized that they could strike

a tremendous blow with a rock.

When we reach the classic Greek period, we have reports of observation.

Aristotle proved that the earth is a sphere, but hardly was a scientist.

Going back to the Babylonians, there were observations of astronomical

events, but there did not seem to be more than a counting of periodic

events and simple extrapolation. Ptolemy tried to build a predictive

model, but Kepler showed that it could not be done with the assumption of

circular motion. One may refer to all these matters as ancient science,

but the majority will say that it is prescientific.

 

The later use of /scientia/ to apply to any orderly study is usually

denied in current usage. When have you heard of theology as the queen of

the sciences except in a historical context? Who refers to philosophy or

rhetoric as a science?

 

It is commonly claimed that Galileo, who gave geometric patterns for what

he learned about acceleration, was the first scientist. I seem to recall

that there were a few earlier adumbrations of something like this. Kepler

also used geometry, but argued simply that the ideal geometric solids

governed planetary positions. He could not have known that there weren't

enough Platonic solids to match the actual number of planets. So many

will insist that we do not have science until we get to Newton, who

constructed a mathematical model that covered terrestrial and

astronomical patterns, but did not explain why there was gravitational

attraction.

 

The building of explanatory models is commonly taken as required for

science, as the term is currently used. If you want to use the term in a

broader sense, you can expect some resistance. Indeed, I gather that

Moorad wants to restrict the term to physical phenomena that can be

directly tested in a laboratory. This excludes geology, with its

historical element; psychology, with thoughts that cannot be directly

measured; etc. But most are not so restrictive.

 

Note that language is flexible. You may use science broadly, but expect

opposition from those who insist that it may only be used in a narrower

sense. Just remember that it is impossible to satisfy everyone, Remember

the fable of the father and son with their donkey trying to satisfy every

critic.

Dave (ASA)

 

 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:50:01 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"

<bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:

> Moorad- so you are saying there was no science until the Greeks came?

> Pre-Greek, no science. Greek, science.

>

> "Where did everything came from?" That is a scientific question.

> Only the Greeks had an answer, and before that, you are saying the

> question wasn't asked or if it was, there was no scientific answer?

> I say there always was a "modern science" answer, but science has

> changed along the way.

>

> Science is like a human. An embryo is human. So is a child. So is

> an adult. Major changes in form, but it is all 100% human.

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Alexanian, Moorad [mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu]

> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 6:04 PM

> To: Dehler, Bernie

> Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu

> Subject: RE: [asa] Was Adam a real person? (ancient science)

>

> On page 178 of "What is Life" Schrödinger quotes John Burnet who

> said, "....it is an adequate description of science to say that it

> is 'thinking about world in the Greek way.'"

>

> Moorad

>

>

> ________________________________

>

> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Dehler, Bernie

> Sent: Sat 4/12/2008 7:10 PM

> Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu

> Subject: RE: [asa] Was Adam a real person? (ancient science)

>

>

>

>

>

> For those who claim there is no ancient science, I have two

> questions:

>

>

>

> 1. When, exactly, did science begin? Please be specific and

> concise- 5 sentences or less.

> 2. Is saying "there was no ancient science" like saying

> "there was no ancient business?" Business today didn't exist in the

> ANE. Today it is thousands (or millions) times more complicated.

> Today we have world markets, derivatives, high-speed computer stock

> trading, board of directors, stock, bonds, futures, commodities,

> mortgages, various forms of debt (home equity, credit card, reverse

> mortgage, etc).

>

>

>

> My point, there was ancient science just like there was ancient

> business, but the "memes" for each have considerably evolved.

>

>

>

> 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 Mon Apr 14 00:12:00 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 14 2008 - 00:12:00 EDT