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

["Folkerts, Timothy J" <FolkertsT@BARTONCCC.EDU>]

John "Slo" Mallinckrodt wrote:

> I think this is a prime example of the fuzzy thinking that=20
> results from attempts to define science in terms of what=20
> kinds of things it talks about, how it goes about its=20
> 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. =20

I, too, was considering emailing Prof George, and perhaps the Christi=
an Science Moniotor.  To this end I was trying to come with my own de=
finition of what science is.  I was currently looking at "science is =
the embodiment of a philosophy that the universe is logical and under=
standable, a philosophy that by observing the universe, humans can di=
scover the underlying patterns and rules." =20

This sort of scientific philosophy allows experts to probe the bounda=
ries of knowledge and allows novices to tackle everyday problems.  In=
 my mind, getting students to recognize the power and utility of this=
 world-view is the main reason for teaching science, not any particul=
ar knowledge  that they might memorize for the next exam.

ID fails this definition because it assumes the universe is not under=
standable - that facts beyond what we can probe and theories beyond w=
hat we can understand are at work in the universe.  "Young earth crea=
tion" is limited science because it postulates that the universe is l=
ogical and understandable, but only to a point ~6000 yr ago.



Tim Folkerts
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l