|
Author
|
Topic: Redefing "Science"?
|
New York Wiseguy
Member
Member # 210
|
posted 30. March 2002 15:17
I hope this is not breaking the rules, but I am reposting this as a new topic, by suggestion of Evan, in response to my earlier posting to his topic "Evolution and Design: a synthesis." Thank you for your suggestion, Evan, and for your quickness in making it.
-------------------------------
This is my first post. I was going to start a new topic, but find I can get to my favorite issue via a reply to this topic. Dr. Dembski, right near the top, says "Tom is doing science the old way, in which nature constitutes an unbroken nexus of natural causes. This is inconsistent with an information-theoretic ...."
I'd like to stop right there, and ask "What is the basis for an assertion that there is new way of doing science?" I have heard it said that Dr. Dembski has proposed "redefining" science, but I haven't yet seen where he so argues. I assume this line must be in the literature somewhere, I just haven't run across it.
Is the premise "nature constitutes an unbroken nexus of natural causes" equivalent to the definition of science as the activity of explaining natural events and objects in terms of "natural law", or more precisely "sensory observations and experiments conducted in the natural world"? I would suggest that this definition, referred to as "methodological naturalism" has been the rule of science in modern times since Francis Bacon in the 16th century. Is it being claimed by Dr. Dembski that there is any consensus in the community of science for now abandoning that approach?
--------------------
----New York Wiseguy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IP: Logged
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 30. March 2002 16:58
This board is not the place for threads which are designed to clarify somebody else's position. If you want to offer a positive proposal, hypothesis, intuition, etc. feel free. In fact, you can often clarify somebody else's position by making your own positive counter-proposal (it just takes a bit of mental gymnastics).
I will leave this thread up for an additional day because I do foresee some potential in developing a model of science which incorporates the concept of information and intelligent agency. However, it will have to be fundamentally reworked to meet my criteria.
[ 30 March 2002, 17:00: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
New York Wiseguy
Member
Member # 210
|
posted 30. March 2002 22:44
OK, fine, I opened up the topic at Evan's suggestion. As you know, I'm new here. I don't care whether this is discussed under Evan's "Consensus" topic or this one. I am hoping to pursue the question of how science might be redefined, under whatever venue the discussion is conducted. My questions still stand.
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 30. March 2002 23:03
I apologize for giving you bad advice, it seems. Sorry.
IP: Logged
|
|
New York Wiseguy
Member
Member # 210
|
posted 31. March 2002 06:49
Thank you, Evan, for your apology. What follows is a gesture towards possibly "rescuing" this topic, subject, of course, to the discretion of the moderator.
While I have said that I will be quite content to continue this under Evan's "synthesis" topic, I am curious to find out if what I am about to say will be regarded as a new and original formulation worthy of being designated a separate topic. I will cheerfully accept whatever might be the moderator's verdict.
What I am about to suggest is not so much a new concept as it is a suggestion as to terminology. Its substantive importance to the ID movement would be essentially tactical, to serve as an aid to gaining wider acceptance for ID among the skeptics who have not seen the light. The moderator might or might not consider this to qualify as a topic.
It certainly appears to me that the redefinition of science which is required to include ID within its domain has created a new classification of intellectual activity which is in effect a superset of what has been traditionally regarded as science. To avoid conflict with those skeptics who prefer to keep science defined "the old way", why not adopt another word to refer to this new superset of science. I would suggest "hyperscience", but would be open to any alternative proposals.
To expand further: I was pleased to see Dr. Dembski make a reference to quantum mechanics as the possible mechanism through which the Designer could operate. The implications of quantum mechanics for the philosophy of science has long been of interest to me. To further elucidate this concept, it could be said that the effects of ID are hidden behind the mask of quantum phenomenon. Another term might be employed also, in order to relate such phenomenon to the concept of naturalism. Events which occur behind the quantum mask might be called "hypernaturalistic" events.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic