| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
> Science is >not< limited to "natural explanations of > phenomena." It's just that there is >not a shred of evidence< for > supernatural explanations, and a >great deal of evidence< for > charlatanism and chicanery and superstition and gullibility among > those who propose such explanations. > As soon as true evidence for supernatural phenomena is documented, > science will pursue it. There is no need to rewrite definitions of > science, particularly by those who know nothing about science. Unfortunately, the exact definition of science is in reality a bit problematic. On the one hand, as paleontologists we have problems with restrictive definitions that tend to exclude historical sciences. Such definitions come largely from either people in a highly experimental and quantitative field (some areas of physics and chemistry) or from young earthers or antievolutionists who want to deny that anyone can really tell anything about the past. On the other hand, there are the overly inclusive definitions from people who see the name "Science" as a mark of prestige and want to include all aspects of social sciences, or from people who want to legitimize bad science like ID or creation science. Even without those problems, philosophers of science don't agree on an exact defintion. However, on a practical level, many supernatural explanations are not amenable to scientific study. Science can investigate some claims of supernatural action. For example, newspaper horoscopes do not actually better predict the experiences of people born at some times of year. On the other hand, the claim that a unique miracle occurred in a specific situation is impossible to test experimentally. For example, take a claim of miraculous healing. The claim that I can always heal anybody I want by praying for them is easily refuted. The claim that praying helped one person in particular to get better is not testable. You can determine if they got better, and whether there is a medical explanation for the event, but not whether or not there is any supernatural action (especially if one recognizes the possibility that supernatural agents don't have to act in one particular way). Thus, I'm a bit hesitant about pro-evolution definitions of science that exclude the supernatural. I tend to define science as dealing with physical things that are at least theoretically replicable. Although I can't actually recreate the Eocene seafloor, the physical laws governing the water, sediment, and organisms are still available to test. I can make models of the organism, look at living relatives, etc. I can test whether a horoscope makes accurate predictions. I can't test whether the planets have some unmeasurable supernatural influence, though I don't believe it on philosophical grounds. -- Dr. David Campbell 425 Scientific Collections Building Department of Biological Sciences Biodiversity and Systematics University of Alabama, Box 870345 Tuscaloosa AL 35487-0345 USA
Partial index: