Re: possibly OT: NYT article on GA creationism/evolution debate

[Joseph Bellina <jbellina@SAINTMARYS.EDU>]

Once again, I must apologize for not having followed this thread...the
numbers of responses was daunting, and the potential for muddle is
enormous.
I think Hugh's point is well taken.  I would focus it abit by pointed to
his correct use of the word believe.  To me the process of science is
essentially inductive  (essentially, because a more careful look shows
much to be reductive, or hypothetical-deductive) in the sense that we
accumulate experiences and ideas about them until we feel confident
enough to say that we believe our experiences and models we build are
valid...there never is enough to prove it in the deductive sense of
proof from some prior truth...at some point we have "warrant for belief"
and so we do, at least for a while.

joe

On Mon, 26 Aug
2002, James Mackey wrote:

> While I do not believe life arose spontaneously some 3.5 BYA, I agree
> with what Hugh says here about the presentation of science.
> James Mackey
>
> ***********************************************
> Hugh Haskell wrote:
>
>
> While I believe that life arose spontaneously some 3.5 BYA, .....
>
> Since that is still an open question, scientifically, it should be
> presented as such in textbooks. To imply more is disingenuous.
>
> But this is part of the problem with textbooks. When all they do is
> present factoids, it is hard for the students to separate out the
> well-established factoids from the speculative ones. The easiest
> things to prove by appeal to authority are the false things.
>
> Science education will, IMO, only be a well-taught subject when we
> put the emphasis on the process rather than on the results. Both are
> important, but the results are tentative, the process is not.

Joseph J. Bellina, Jr.               574-284-4662
Associate Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556