RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
franky172



Posts: 158
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2007,10:17   

Joseph at UD (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ken-miller-a-wasted-life/#comment-102149) continues to not understand what science is:

Quote
And in the end science is about reality. That is science is the search for the truth, ie the reality (behind the existence of that we are investigating), via our never ending quest for knowledge. And you cannot define science to arbitrarily pick-n-choose reality.


I would disagree.  I think most people who study phil-science are "instrumentalists" - i.e. they hold that science is about useful theories that make accurate predictions and model the world around us - not necessaruly theories that are accurate models of underlying "truth".  For example, "science" as commonly defined is incapable of discerning the difference between common notiions of "reality" from the "brian in a jar" hypothesis, and as such can not be a pure search for underlhying truth.  Based on the intrumentalist understanding of "science" then, we see that methodological naturalism is the only tenable set of rules by which to formulate theories that are predictive and useful.

Please note that this distinction does not derive from an arbitrary "choice of reality", but is instead a set of strict limits on science.  Ones that ID does not seem to adhere to.

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]