> -----Original Message----- > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 9:29 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: McCain's VP want's Creationism taught in Science Class > > 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
I would still say that even in this thought experiment the state of the cat is "unknown". ;^) But I do admit that my distinction is semantic... but I think it's a useful distinction. In fact however the point of the thought experiment is that the state IS known: before the collapse of the wave function both states exist. Opening the box collapses the wave function and one or the other "realities" asserts itself. I would still say that the ultimate reality is "unknown" (you can always open the box and see) rather than "unknowable" (impossible to model). (Remember this is a thought experiment, not a real experiment: the idea that there are really only two states isn't realistic, but it does provide a framework for discussion.) > observation largely does not apply in quantum physics. Yet it is But direct observation is far, far from the only way to "know". We "know" about gravity through indirect observation despite the fact that we've never identified the particle (or wave) that "carries" gravity. > 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. Again, it's semantics, but I would draw a thick, nasty, separating line between actually "unknowable" and "unknowable right now". There is vastly more unknown to us than known... but much, if not all of it, is ultimately "knowable". Again this many not be real "truth" but it is a tenant of "scientific truth": you ignore those lines of thought that eliminate any possibility for investigation. It's a bad example but "Why did that rock fall?" The answer "God did it" is scientifically untenable: it precludes any further investigation since God (or any "magic") lies outside its scope. You can (of course) choose to accept that answer but you have to also accept that you've (voluntarily) left the realm of science. > That is what I mean by the unknowable, though there are other > unknowable questions, like the existence of a God. I would say that IS an unknowable question using my definitions as well. > 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 feel like we're moving back to the original argument. No sane person would ever argue that science "knows everything". You can name infinite elements that we don't know (the optimist would add "yet"). Pointing out what we don't know says nothing about the method or evaluations of what should be considered respectful of the method. > 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. What are they? I'm curious since I've heard this argument many times but it's never been expanded upon? As I define things (and as I believe most working scientists do as well) "Science" is the result of the modern scientific method. There are definitely related disciplines (mathematics for example) and unrelated disciplines that seek to answer some of the same questions (theology, philosophy, etc). There are also social disciplines that should guide scientific inquiry (ethics for examples). While I do believe that social aspects can hinder the scientific method as you describe I do not consider that a failure of the method. Lysenkoism, for example, was not a failure of the scientific method - it was a failure to use the method (something you can hardly blame the method for). But - and here's where I guess my challenge lies - what are the other mechanisms that you're talking about? 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:268282 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
