Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.religion
Subject: Re: Can Creationists Contribute to Science?
Message-ID: <1596@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Dec-83 16:22:18 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1596
Posted: Fri Dec 30 16:22:18 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Dec-83 17:36:17 EST
References: <1330@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 37

This proposal may make a fair bit of ground in suggesting ways in which 
creationists could avoid the problems that arise when their beliefs
contradicts that which is accwepted scientific wisdom, but premises like
"I am real" and "The universe is real" entirely lock out those religions
which profes a belief in an illusory self and world. This is something
which is not done by the current definition of science (whatever that
may be).

However, there is a more serious problem, in that the whole article makes
no attempt to distinguish between *the model* and *what it represents*.
Statements like "the universe is real" and "the laws of logic are valid"
are either products of this confusion, or are simply unworkable
in discribing what is already considered science. Most people would agree
that dreams are not real, for instance, but there are many disciplines
of psychology that places great emphasis on understanding and interpreting
dreams. Psychosomatic illness may not be real either, but they can make
you very sick. Placebos can cure some people of some diseases.

If you move to "harder" sciences you find that astronomers are studying
stars that may have gone nova millions of years ago, and thus are not
real (though the light is still travelling from there to here). When
you start talking about the models used for sub-atomic physics you
are in for another sort of problem. It may be convenient to think of electrons 
as little spheres which whiz around a sun-like mass of protons, but the
limitations of that model soon become apparant. it may be that one should
not think of electrons and protons as "things" at all. if they are not
"things" then in what sense they are real is a very good question.

I am curious as to whether any other group finds that the philosophy of
sciece is not neutral enough for their liking. I have only found 2 
groups which consistantly complain -- the creationists and the 
gung-ho ecologists who blame "scienceandtechnology" for everything.

Who else has philosophical objections?

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura