Re: If biology isn't even a science, wwhat is the ToE?
- From: "Gordon Hill" <gordon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 Mar 2006 11:34:41 -0800
Richard Forrest wrote:
NashtOn wrote:
Inspired by some posts I read on s.b.evolution,which in turn are
inspired by Munson, Mayr and Ruse.
My favorite: Is Biology a Provincial Science? Philosophy of
Science 42: 428-447.
Too funny. Why Sabuto? Because many posters in here often equate biology
with physics, when the debate is raging within biology itself as to
whether it's a real science or not?
Thank the Gods for Mayr, he put forth some convincing arguments about
why biology is, in fact a science, just a different,
take-our-word-for-it, devoid of "laws" pot pourri of morsels, very akin
to fluid thermodynamics.
Put that in you pipe and smoke it.
--
Nicolas
"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
The Church Of Darwin
Well, the philosophers of science can argue about it until they're blue
in the face.
In the meantime, those of us involved in the biological sciences will
just carry on looking at the evidence, proposing hypotheses to explain
the evidence, testing those hypothesis and publishing the results of
our reseach in science journals.
Sure feels like science to me.
By the way, all sciences are pretty well devoid of laws these days: no
theory is treated as absolute, even if it provides an incredibly
accurate description of the behaviour of a system.
I'm not sure where to jump in here (or whether to), but I watched part
of the discussion on science education yesterday at the
Research!America annual meeting on C-SPAN yesterday and was struck by a
reference to biology as not being a basic science as are physics,
chemistry and mathematics because it involves all three. (I hope I
haven't bootched this.)
The point seemed to be that biology, while a true science, does not
enjoy the same "certainties" found in the other three.
I don't think NashtOn watched the program (it was on opposite Pat
Robertson and Jerry Falwell). If he did, he made a dishonest reference
to the premise.
I like the idea that biology, while undoubtedly a science, presents a
more challenging opportunity to the scientist because of it's added
complexity.
Any thoughts?
Thanks, GH
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: If biology isn't even a science, wwhat is the ToE?
- From: wf3h
- Re: If biology isn't even a science, wwhat is the ToE?
- From: John Wilkins
- Re: If biology isn't even a science, wwhat is the ToE?
- References:
- If biology isn't even a science, wwhat is the ToE?
- From: NashtOn
- Re: If biology isn't even a science, wwhat is the ToE?
- From: Richard Forrest
- If biology isn't even a science, wwhat is the ToE?
- Prev by Date: Re: New Pseudonyms for evolutionists
- Next by Date: Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
- Previous by thread: Re: If biology isn't even a science, wwhat is the ToE?
- Next by thread: Re: If biology isn't even a science, wwhat is the ToE?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
