Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!gatech!bloom-beacon!oberon!cit-vax!elroy!ames!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!ekwok
From: ekwok@mipos3.UUCP (Gibbons v. Ogden)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med,talk.rumors,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Definition of science
Message-ID: <829@mipos3.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Jul-87 12:31:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: mipos3.829
Posted: Thu Jul  9 12:31:11 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 10:16:47 EDT
References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM> <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> <1207@isl1.ri.cmu.edu> <1189@aecom.YU.EDU> <824@mipos3.UUCP> <15379 Jul 87 16:31:11 GMT
Reply-To: ekwok@mipos3.UUCP (Gibbons v. Ogden)
Organization: The Appoint-Spud-McKenzie-to-the-Supreme-Court Campaign
Lines: 49
Xref: mnetor sci.research:192 sci.med:2629 talk.rumors:911 misc.headlines:922

In article <828@mipos3.UUCP> ekwok@mipos3.UUCP (Gibbons v. Ogden) writes:
>In article <1537@sigi.Colorado.EDU> pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) writes:
>
>>This guy seems to be from the "Majicthize & Vroomfondel school of philosohy"
>>(we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty).
>>Seriously Gibbons, your response is cute, but irrelevent.  Read carefully.
>>Craig was offering a DEFINITION, not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
>>
>>Definitions are not proven or disproven, they are given as terms for discussion
>>and either accepted by the participants of the discussion or not.  If a
>>suitible definition cannot be found, the discussion collapses.  I, for one,
>>think it is a good concise statement of the important aspects of science
>>(I do wish you would reference it, craig).
>>You are, of course, free to reject the definition.  If you do, we ask that
>>you define what you mean when you say "science" so that we can evaluate your
>>arguments in the proper context, or simply reject your definition and
>>all arguments based on it.  It should be noted that, as I have said in this
>>forum before, falsifiability is concidered an absolutly essential aspect of a
>>scientific theory--at least by all reputable scientists.
>>
>
Seriously, Anthony, don't you agree that a definition needs to be 
self-consistent? My point was an attempt to point out that the definition
was trying to define itself, which (to me, at least) makes no sense at all.
By saying that something is not science if it cannot be disproved, it is
implicitly implied that the process of "disproving" (or equivalently
"proving") 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".

I am quite sure that eminent philosophers have used that as a working (emphasis)
definition in a carefully defined domain, probably carefully excluded the
self-definition aspects of the claim. I understand what is the "scientific
method", as I am sure you do. But I don't understand what is "science", and
especially do not understand if "methods of science" (not necessarily
the "scientific method") helps us to understand it. Then my question will
be "Is there an understanding of what science is, outside of the methods
of science? and, how do we know such methods are valid, without using the
scientific method to challenge it?" And, please, do not overwhelm me with 
quotes from eminent philosophers, I just want an explanation in simple English. 
Calling a deer a horse does not make it a horse, like an old Chinese adage says. 







--