Re: Def'n of Science
Steve Clark (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 01 Mar 1999 14:12:12 -0600
At 06:23 PM 2/28/99 -0500, Bodester wrote:
>So would I in fact. I do think scientists, although not dealing with
>absolutes, should be very careful in what they proclaim as truth. With the
>issue of the list especially, there are many counterexamples to go with the
>examples given by either side of these debates, and unless many or most of
>these are accounted for I would say it shouldn't be called truth, possible
>or probable maybe, but not truth. I understand how science points to the
>past and what happened, but I also understand that we are quite fallible and
>our interpretations may easily be off-base.
This view, that there are inherent limitations behind historical knowledge,
sounds like something from the Scottish philosopher, David Hume. Hume used
this to caution against the historical claims of the Bible.
Being from Calvin College, Jason, how do you reconcile your caution
regarding the historical claims of evolution science and the historical
claims of the Bible?