Comments on: Defining Science and Resolving Issues

By: The Divine Conspiracy Blog » Blog Archive » Defining Science

The Divine Conspiracy Blog » Blog Archive » Defining Science — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:52:21 +0000

[...] on Defining Science and Resolving Issues. See here. Posted in Religion, Science | No Comments » Leave a [...]

By: Pastor Philip Spomer

Pastor Philip Spomer — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:12:52 +0000

I heartily recommend “Theory and Reality” by Peter Godfrey-Smith, as an introduction to the philosophy of science. It’s an accessible and informed survey of the current state of the discipline. It addresses Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Laudan, and nuts like Feyerabend. The analysis of the editor is kept secondary to the historical presentation. Were I to teach a class in the subject, this would be my text book.

By: Gary Simmons

Gary Simmons — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 05:11:47 +0000

…what is this fell sorcery? Just kidding. Well done!

By: Collin Brendemuehl

Collin Brendemuehl — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:27:17 +0000

TUD,
Sure. Just drop me a direct email.

By: Collin Brendemuehl

Collin Brendemuehl — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:31:10 +0000

R H,
Look at it more broadly as a potentially flawed and/or deficient model. But there are naturalistic evolutionists who do the same, even well-known people. I mistakenly left out a quote from the Grants which fits the bill nicely.

By: Truth Unites... and Divides

Truth Unites... and Divides — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:25:50 +0000

“You should see how much I cut out to make it “fit”.”

I believe you. I’d like to look at the whole paper. Care to e-mail it to me?

By: R Hampton

R Hampton — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:59:40 +0000

The human context in which theories occur is also critical in describing a scientific theory. Every scientist’s perspective creates a varying degree of objectivity and with that a different lack or benefit as it relates to objectivity. If we make the mistake of ignoring the context of each construct then we will allow for a potential corruption of objectivity that may easily allow a theory construct to lead to false conclusions.

That’s why the Scientific Method does not end with theorizing. Publishing theories for peer review and analysis is also essential to the process. From this step flaws like personal bias can be revealed, requiring the theory to be revised or discarded.

A perfect example is Michael Behe and his promotion of “irreducible complexity” (IC). His hypothesis cited the bacterial flagellum as evidence of IC, but other scientists noticed that a simpler functional form was found in nature; the Type III secretion system. As a result, Michael Behe was forced to revise his hypothesis. As it stands now, what one scientist considers “irreducibly complex” is entirely subjective for no valid empirical measure or quantification of IC exists.

By: Collin Brendemuehl

Collin Brendemuehl — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:42:11 +0000

You should see how much I cut out to make it “fit”.

By: Truth Unites... and Divides

Truth Unites... and Divides — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:11:26 +0000

Defining Science and Resolving Issues

This post is too brief to define Science and to resolve resulting issues.

;-)