Re: [asa] Ignorance in all around I see...

From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Date: Sun Jul 06 2008 - 18:52:16 EDT

Yes, pointing out things that science hasn't explained is a legitimate scientific activity, especially if those are things that the scientific community has ignored or hasn't taken with sufficient seriousness. I think, e.g., of Lord Kelvin's comment about the two clouds that overshadowed classical physics, the lack of adequate explanation of the M-M experiment and of blackbody radiation. But a research program that is limited to that negative activity can't be described as progressive. The significant scientific work in those 2 cases was done by Einstein & Planck.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: ASA ; Murray Hogg
  Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 6:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Ignorance in all around I see...

        Shall we also assume that not all 'science' must need be 'positive'?

        This in response to George's "all attempts to do positive science within an ID paradigm."

        If we could say that ID attempts to do negative science, this might ironically 'add' something to the conversation too!

        G. Arago

        p.s. I'm glad to see George using Kuhn's SoS concept of 'paradigms,' which would bring he and I onto a similar playing field for a change(-over-time) =)

        --- On Mon, 7/7/08, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote:

          From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
          Subject: Re: [asa] Ignorance in all around I see...
          To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
          Received: Monday, July 7, 2008, 1:59 AM

Hi George,

Very helpful!

I hadn't considered the distinction between "science stopper" in
theory
and "science stopper" in practice.

I think I've been arguing that ID isn't necessarily a "science
stopper"
in theory, whereas others have been arguing that its a "science
stopper"
in practice.

At least, recasting the discussion in those terms makes Pim's position a
fair degree more understandable to me. Particularly if one distinguishes
between what ID theorists have tried to do, and what their efforts have
actually achieved.

Blessings,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

George Murphy wrote:
> The claim that ID is a "science stopper" need not mean just that
its
> adherents don't even try to do any science. If all attempts to do
> positive science within an ID paradigm fail to get anywhere then after a
> point it's not unreasonable to conclude that that paradigm has
prevented
> any progress. Whether or not such a point has been reached can of course
> be debated.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 6 18:55:30 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jul 06 2008 - 18:55:30 EDT