Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!gatech!hao!boulder!pell
From: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med
Subject: Re: Definition of science
Message-ID: <1552@sigi.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Fri, 10-Jul-87 13:43:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: sigi.1552
Posted: Fri Jul 10 13:43:59 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 11:40:15 EDT
References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM>
Sender: news@sigi.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 69
Xref: mnetor sci.research:194 sci.med:2634

ving") is a concept independent of science. Otherwise, the definition
>can be reduced to the tautology, "everything is in science unless it is not
>in science".
>
>(no) quotes from eminent philosophers,
>I just want an explanation in simple English. 


You and I apparently read different defintions.  I saw no place in the
definition where it claimed itself to be scientific.  But it seems
you are addressing an important point.  The following statements I believe
to be true.  they are not scientific:

Science is not the only valid way to attempt to understand the universe; like
the other ways, it has a realm of aplicability.  This implies a realm(s) in
which science does not apply.  In these realms, it cannot even ask,
let alone answer, the important questions.

What are the boundries of this realm of aplicability for science? good question.
It is not a question that can be addressed scientifically, as I think you try to
point out.  Science cannot define its own limits.
 
NO MEASURING INSTRUMENT CAN BE USED TO DEFINE THE LIMITS OF ITS OWN ACCURACY.

yes, this does make science a tautology.  But I would argue *ad absurdum*
that my belief that I exist is also a tautology.

The best we as scientists can do is look for common aspects of that which
we call science as an attempt to define our realm of applicability from
within.  For this we turn to logic--another great tautology.
Science, we assert, needs to fit the form of logic.
The test of falsification is a long-standing part of that form.
(stop here if you are not interested in more of my ramblings on religion)

For example:
In many classic dialogues on the topic of the existence of god or her nature.
Many people wrote "logical" proofs of the existence of god.
One of the main objections to these was through the test of falsification.
The fundamentalist who states "god loves her children" will not admit
evidence to the contrary.  When confronted with natural disasters and infants
suffering, the definition of "love" is merely altered to alow this ("god's
love is different (greater) than the way we define it).  the definition
is qualified to the point where there is no meaning left.  the "logical" god
dies a death by 1000 qualification.  
I choose this example because it illustrates a point.  The logician has
not disproved god.  He has merely shown that the arguments for the existence
of god are not logical.  god is outside the realm of applicability of logic
and therefore that of its child, science.
The only logical response to the question "is there a god" is "I dunno."
Scientists are usually comfortable with that.  There are few militant
atheist scientists.  It is only when the religious fanatic says "my belief
is as scientific as yours," vis a vis creationism etc., that we
must say "no, we have rules for that.  your science doesn't cut it."

There, i didn't quote eminent philosophers.  But, since there is a reason why
they are eminent and I am not, I might suggest David Hume's "dialogues on
natural religion,"  Decartes and Kant were also very good at this sort of thing.

-tony

you know where i live.