> -----Original Message----- > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 11:59 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: McCain's VP want's Creationism taught in Science Class > > the ontological questions require more time than I have right this > this second -- I am at work and also editing -- but I promise to come > back to them soon and perhaps even today as I find this discussion > interesting. Let me answer your final questions really fast though. > > What I was primarily thinking about there was drug research. Since you > cannot patent a plant, essentially no research is done in the United > States on things like, oh, the uses of ginger to reduce inflammation, > for example, or licorice for liver problems. What research is taking > place on such topics seems to mostly be happening in Japan.
I think it's a false premise to say that failure to do research in the U.S. equates to a problem with the scientific method. All science is a global, communal endeavor (or at least nearly all scientists would have it be so); secondly even if true this has to fall into the category of political sins rather than scientific ones. > The other mechanisms would be, well, non-deductive reasoning, > brainstorming, induction, thought experiments, and mathematics, for > example. You would take the ideas they generate and attempt to find a > way to support or disprove a hypothesis generate through some such > means by an experiment of some kind. For instance, mathematical > analysis of the orbits of certain planets predicted that a moon would > be found... there. Maybe we need to discuss base definitions then... every single thing you said I would consider wholly contained within the scientific method. With the possible exception of mathematics (which is truly its own discipline) all of these are tools of the scientific method (in my opinion). Thought experiments are ideal to discuss and debate real experiments, to consider hypothesis for which we lack the capability to explore and to illustrate and educate. Einstein was no less a scientist because many of his theories were backed up with thought experiments: many of his ideas were impossible to verify in his time (again, not "unknowable" but "unknown"). Gravitational Lensing, when finally observed, matched his predictions completely. I'm just not sure we're talking about the same thing... how would you consider the mathematical analysis of the orbits as "not science" as I've been discussing it? To me it's the epitome of science: some observed information is applied to previous learning (in this case observations about the movements of planets compared to our known understanding of planetary motion) and a prediction is made. If correct that prediction bolsters the hypothesis, if incorrect it causes revaluation of the hypothesis. This is science in action! This is exactly how science works! Nothing here is "unknowable"... it's all "unknown" (until, you know, we figured out how to make it known). A definite and important part of "real" science takes place in the head. The imagination, leaps of intuition, and wild guesses are the foundation by which hypothesis are tested. And they're all important... science is one of the very few disciplines where being wrong is often as (or more) valuable than being right. > My point is that you can have a scientific discussion about what > cannot be known. Look at the Drake equation or even the theory of > relativity. You take the experimental data as far as you can and try > to find a way to generate more, but once you run out of that, you are > not necessarily ouside the bounds of science, just outside the bounds > of the scientific method. Maybe this is the key... because I think I see things from the other side. The Drake Equation is an interesting example: you think it's trying to discuss the unknown, but I consider it the exact opposite. Drake attempted to collect the best knowledge he had (all those "knowns") an make a grand prediction - this is perfectly valid in science. He never once stepped outside what was known in his analysis - he never, for example, assumed the possibility of non-carbon life forms because he had no evidence for them. He was constantly (and, I might add, happily) bound by the currently available understanding. He was working within the known. Drake didn't invent a fantasy, he predicted an outcome. But more importantly (and remember my premise that science can, of course, deal with the "unknown" but never with the "unknowable") the prediction can be verified. Not right now, of course, but it's clear that a census of all stars, all planets could, conceivably take place. It IS "knowable"... just not by us right now. Had Drake (or Einstein or anybody else) ever truly reached outside of science - into what I'm calling the "unknowable" - then their investigation would be meaningless and all forward movement would stop. If they had ever stopped reasoning and said "then God did it" (or any kind of magical thinking) they would have left the confines of science and entered into the unknowable. There is no conceivable way that we can EVER (no matter how much time, technology or understanding that we ever gain) "know" God or account for it in a scientific investigation. Maybe we've just hit the point (that we often get to around here) that we're both saying pretty much the same exact thing in different ways? ;^) 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:268296 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
