Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: judge rejects i.d. in PA case



Tim wrote:

Have any of you read the OpEd piece from the Christian Science
Monitor titled "What's wrong with intelligent design, and with its
critics"? It obviously gets a wide audience, but I think it is
quite off-track. I'd be interested in other opinions.

<http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1222/p09s02-coop.html>

The author starts out basically claiming that because science is
often mis-defined, we shouldn't bother trying to clearly determine
what is and isn't science. He gives several "straw man" definitions
of science and then knocks them down, claiming then that science is
basically undefinable.

Instead, he suggests that we "apply the label "science" to any
collection of assertions about the workings of the natural world.
Fine, intelligent design is a science then - as is astrology, as is
parapsychology. But what has a claim to being taught in the science
classroom isn't all science, but rather the best science..."

To me this is a dangerous erosion of what science is. The author
feels that the distiction between good and bad science is clearer
than the distinction between science and non-science. I would much
rather keep the lines drawn where they are.

Anyway, this has just been bothering me all afternoon and I had to
say something to someone!!!

I agree.

I think this is a prime example of the fuzzy thinking that results
from attempts to define science in terms of what kinds of things it
talks about, how it goes about its business, how much the evidence
seems to support it, etc.

As I have said here before, it seems to me that "science" is
distinguished not nearly so much by the fact that it is compatible
with evidence as it is by the fact that it rigorously rules things
out. In my opinion, the more a theory rules out, the stronger its
claim to the appellation "science." And the more it survives
attempts to observe the things it rules out, the stronger its claim
to the honorific "good" and vice-versa.

Thus, a theory like "young earth creation" that rules out the
observation of anything older than six thousand years is most
definitely, in my opinion "science." The fact that it has failed
miserably to survive attempts to observe things older than six
thousand years, means that it is wildly incompatible with the
evidence and that it is, therefore, "bad science." (That doesn't
mean, by the way, that it's wrong.)

An idea like "intelligent design" on the other hand rules nothing
out. As a result it is compatible with ALL evidence and it
is--therefore!--"not science." (Again, that doesn't mean it is
wrong.)

I think Professor George might benefit from a talk with his emeritus
colleague in the physics department and former American Journal of
Physics editor Robert Romer. Accordingly, I am copying both of them
on this message.

--
John "Slo" Mallinckrodt

Professor of Physics, Cal Poly Pomona
<http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm>

and

Lead Guitarist, Out-Laws of Physics
<http://www.csupomona.edu/~hsleff/OoPs.html>
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l