Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!pt!isl1.ri.cmu.edu!cycy From: cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med,talk.rumors,misc.headlines Subject: Re: A quick restatement for Chris. Message-ID: <1207@isl1.ri.cmu.edu> Date: Fri, 26-Jun-87 18:51:29 EDT Article-I.D.: isl1.1207 Posted: Fri Jun 26 18:51:29 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jul-87 20:00:51 EDT References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM> <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> <291@chemstor.UUCP> Distribution: world Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 72 Xref: mnetor sci.research:179 sci.med:2561 talk.rumors:900 misc.headlines:855 I'm not a very frequent reader of the net anymore (especially since I've been deluged with other committments lately), so please forgive the slow response. In article <291@chemstor.UUCP>, bob@chemstor.UUCP (Robert Weigel) writes: > Thanks Chris. I appreciate this more explicit response. It is rather > interesting that I did graduate as a science teacher. That's interesting. I was a history major with an emphasis in science and technology. > It is important that we realize that people > with faults just like us write definitions, but science demands that nobody will > pre-define science for me. I explained in a response to another recent article, > my reasons for defining science as I do. The discrepency between my definition > and the "accepted" one is fundementally that theirs limits observations data > to "physical" sensors. (ie. ears, eyes, etc.). Such science denies information > that can totally change the "experimental output". If our "science" is correct, > then it cannot examine questions such as "what is the meaning of life", because > there is none! I will respond to this section on the net since it may be of interest to others. I will not comment any further on this subject in these groups. I reccomend redirecting this to the philosophy group. First of all, if we all have different definitions of science, then the term becomes much too semantically ambiguous to be useful. It's a like having the standard definition of a fork (a pronged eating utensil), and somebody coming along and saying "no! it's a smooth, bowl-like utensil with a handle on it (spoon)!" It doesn't work. And nobody just sat down and said "This is what science is from now on". It's been the work and observation for many philosphers and scientists for centuries from Bacon to Kuhn. Not only that, if I understand you correctly, you say that science demands that it cannot be defined for you. However, if it demands that, then it must already be to some extent defined. Now, perhaps my suggestion that science is completey defined is extreme (but it got my basic point across). However, I can think of nobody in the field who will deny my assertion that the domain of science is natural phenomena. God is by definition supernatural. He (or She) therefore fall outside of the realm of science. The supernatural is the realm of theology and philosophy. Similarly, the meaning of life is also a philosophical question. Furthermore, science does not purport to be the method by which all questions can be answered. As I mentioned before, it works within the realm of nature, and that means observable phenomena. Recall that one of the basic requirements of science is falsifiability. Your definition could allow anything. What kind of reliable information can you gain from non-sensory data? I submit, none. I have bunches of theological disputes with fundemantalist Christians. However, there is no way to really prove or disprove either side of a theological dispute. Can you imagine somebody claiming "well, God told me so" as support for a scientific theory? I would not want the medicine I rely on to heal me when I'm sick to be based on that type of research. Not only that, what if somebody said "Well, God told me this other thing"? You can get stuck in a sort of Oral Roberts Syndrome ("God is going to call me home if you don't accept my paper in JAMA" :-)). Sceince and religion don't have to clash; indeed, since they cover mutually exclusive territory, they shouldn't. Religion may provide ethics which will guide the scientist in as much as what areas to experiement in, what projects to get involved in, etc. (work in genetics, or chemical weapons development, for example). It may even suggest that more compassionate methods of running experiements on animals be attempted if possible (a very hairy issue which I will avoid now). However, that does not make it permissible to inject religion (read supernatural, non-falisifiable concepts) into scientific methodolgy and interpretation. I hope this describes satisfactorly my position. Religious beliefs injected into "the experimental output" will damage the integrity of the scientific method, and complete throw off the accuracy of the results. The two domains (sceince and religion) are separate, and that is as it should be. -- -- Chris. (cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu)