Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!mit-eddie!think!ames!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!omepd!uoregon!chemstor!bob From: bob@chemstor.UUCP (Robert Weigel) Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med,talk.rumors,misc.headlines Subject: A quick restatement for Chris. Message-ID: <291@chemstor.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Jun-87 13:50:24 EDT Article-I.D.: chemstor.291 Posted: Tue Jun 16 13:50:24 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jun-87 09:54:14 EDT References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM> <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> <283@chemstor.UUCP> <1203@isl1.ri.cmu.edu> Reply-To: bob@chemstor.UUCP (Bob Weigel) Distribution: world Organization: University of Oregon Chemstores, Eugene OR Lines: 53 Xref: mnetor sci.research:172 sci.med:2467 talk.rumors:886 misc.headlines:692 >From: cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI >As far as the question of what science is, I suggest you study it. There is >a large body of work on science and scientific method. I also recommend >reading McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 529 F. Supp. 1255 (1982) for >some interesting arguments about what science is, and a very well done >analysis of the arguments. Try reading Popper. I don't have to define science; >it's already been defined. And one property of science is that it does not >consider non-falsifiable theories as its territory. Included in this class >are supernatural phenomenon. God is supernatural. God is not a scientific >concept. Even if God does exist (and I will not say what my opinion on the >matter is here), God's existence is not scientific concept. >> >...... >Provide me again with the words, and I will. And I do not disagree that there >may be more to it than that. I don't necessarily agree either. However, science >is not concerned with questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" >...... >creationism can never be considered science by anybody who understand it. The >Bible just doesn't cut it scientifically speaking. Well, I won't go on. Try >reading the case I mentioned above. >-- > -- Chris. (cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu) Thanks Chris. I appreciate this more explicit response. It is rather interesting that I did graduate as a science teacher. In preparation, I did do a bit of study on this matter. It is important that we realize that people with faults just like us write definitions, but science demands that nobody will pre-define science for me. I explained in a response to another recent article, my reasons for defining science as I do. The discrepency between my definition and the "accepted" one is fundementally that theirs limits observations data to "physical" sensors. (ie. ears, eyes, etc.). Such science denies information that can totally change the "experimental output". If our "science" is correct, then it cannot examine questions such as "what is the meaning of life", because there is none! A restatement of what I said before should explain why. ~"Let us assume that the current state of all matter and energy in the known and unknown universe, is this way because matter and energy at some time dt ago followed the laws of this universe (again, known or unknown laws). Perhaps real randomness is present,...it doesn't really change the outcome of this viewpoint. If this is so, then the thing I am typing right now are also a result of things totally out of my control. ( Can I change history????? Can I change the laws??? How about manipulating random events!!? [that's a cute thought])" Therefore, if you believe in science as you say you do, I will view your next response just as you must. (Something that just had to happen.) If, however, you'd like to make a break from futility, e-mail the words that you CHOSE to respond with, since as I said, most have made known that they will dogmatically hold to the science definition laid out for them. I hope this is the last public response I will have to make on this issue.