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.