Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uwvax!oddjob!hao!boulder!pell
From: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med,talk.rumors,misc.headlines
Subject: Definition of science
Message-ID: <1537@sigi.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Wed, 8-Jul-87 12:20:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: sigi.1537
Posted: Wed Jul  8 12:20:27 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Jul-87 06:35:33 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>
Sender: news@sigi.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 43
Xref: mnetor sci.research:184 sci.med:2592 talk.rumors:903 misc.headlines:893

(Gibbons v. Ogden) writes:
   (Craig Werner) writes:
>>
>>	Just so we deal in no uncertain terms:
>>
>>	Here is the best definition of the domain of science that I have
>>ever heard formulated:

>>>   [a very concise definition of science in terms of falsification]
>>

>That's very nice, Craig. But, is "disproving" a scientific concept? What, then,
>philosophically, is a "disproof" or a "disproof" of the "contrary" (presumably,
>a "proof")? If your theory is scientific (the theory that science deals with
>disprovable assertions), then exists some assertions in the theory which is
>disprovable. But then these assertions deal with the possibility of disprove,
>implying the impossibility of disprove in these assertions, which is a 
>contradiction, and so the theory is not scientific. Alas, this is hairy-er
>than Vatican III, whenever it comes.
>
>-- 
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.

tony

pell@boulder.colorado.edu
molecular etc. bio.
boulder, co. 80309-0347