This is a thoughful answer Jim, but I still think it is wrong. I give you Schrodinger's cat. The state of the cat is unknowable. Direct observation largely does not apply in quantum physics. Yet it is science, yes? Similarly, the nature of the universe is definitely a question for astronomy, but there definitely are perceptual limits to what we can answer there. We are limited not just by technology but also by our senses and by fundamental laws of nature like the speed of light. That is what I mean by the unknowable, though there are other unknowable questions, like the existence of a God.
We know what brain waves indicate a coma, but we don't know why some people recover and others don't. Medicine is a science nonetheless. It just doesn't know everything. I don't mean to bust your chops; I actually don't think ID should be taught in schools either. But I do think you are confusing science and the scientific method. The scientific method may well be the single most valuable tool we have for the advancement of knowledge and human thought; but there are others that are useful, not just to philosophy and religion, but also to science. The scientific method also has its limitations in the current social context, where most scientific research is funded. If you cannot make a profit on it, it mostly does not get researched. But that is another discussion. On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:06 PM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: Re: McCain's VP want's Creationism taught in Science Class > > I wasn't actually going to reply to this but the more I thought about it the > more I think there may be a misunderstanding here. > > I also rewrote this about a dozen times... > >> um. I don't think it's knowable how the universe started. But science >> deals with the unknowable all the time. Questions like -- will my >> father ever come out of that coma and will be be ok if he does? I know >> someone that is dealing with that one this week. Questions like what >> is the universe like at its edges.? Does it have an edge? >> >> I am impatient with people who are full of certitudes. > > I think that you may be mistaking scientific certitude with absolute > certitude. But that's actually another, different aspect of the issue. > Even if we don't consistently say "scientific fact" (which does not equal > "philosophic truth") that's what we mean. > > But in this case, specifically, I think that one primary aspect is being > missed: Science is a discipline. A human discipline. A process designed to > help us understand the natural world. The understanding that we gain via > the discipline may not be certain and will never be complete but the > discipline itself IS OUR CREATION and we can definitely be certain about it. > > We invented the system, its boundaries and its requirements. It's proven > incredibly competent to help us understand our world by allowing us to > predict results and solve problems but it still is our creation. We apply > it to the world, not the other way 'round. > > We can, with arrogant dismissal if we so choose, completely dismiss > Intelligent Design as unscientific. We cannot declare it as "false" (since > that's a philosophic issue) but we can declare it, confidently and > certainly, as "scientifically false". > > Just to be even more pedantic Science doesn't really ever deal with the > "unknowable" although it often deals with the "unknown". The old saw about > not being able to prove a negative applies: anything truly "unknowable" is > outside its scope. To be within the scope of science something needs to be > observable, it needs to be replicable, it needs to be falsifiable. > > For this reason we say that God creating the universe is also scientifically > false. It's not that it couldn't happen or that we can prove it didn't but > rather that the requirements of the system of science haven't been met by > that statement. > > THAT'S where the certitude lies: not in the absolute truth or falseness of > any statement or idea, but rather in its applicability to the discipline of > science. > > Jim Davis > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:268278 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
