Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

[js1138]

The philosophy of science came after science, not before it.

Good point. Not only that, but I suspect the average working scientist neither knows much about the philosophy of science, nor cares. This, of course, infuriates the wordy crowd.

[f.Christian]

perpetual motion lies placemaker !

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You've been through 'em all?

I confess. I read them all.

[Nebullis]

Thanks for putting those quotes up side by side. Grandpierre presents Pinker as intending to convey that "In other words, moral reasoning assumes the existence of things that science tells us are unreal (Pearcey, 2000)."

Pinker, however, states that free will and ethical reasoning are as real as mathematical concepts. Their causation and "reality" are irrelevant to their usefulness.

The difference may be too subtle, but it's significant.

[f.Christian]

Power corrupts absolutely placemaker !

Power abhors instant fill up vacuum placemaker !

[exmarine]

I'm admitting nothing of the sort. The philosophy of science came after science, not before it.

You did admit that your science was embedded with philosophy (i.e. Popper). Am I to believe that you just go into scientific investigations with an empty head with no pre-conceived notions about how you might interpret what you find? Am I to believe that your education since childhood in the many facets of "naturalism" (oops - another philosophy)had no impression on you philosophically and created no philosophical biases? What a man of true individual character and will you must be! Indeed, you must be the only objective scientist that has ever lived. Admittedly, some areas of science are much more interpretive than others, and it just so happens that with neodarwinism, the room for interpretation and application of naturalistic presupposition is gargantuan. Bottom line: Science and philosophy are intertwined and interdependent. But we all know that philosophy is not science and science is not able to confirm any philosophy - so it is rather unscientific of you professor to employ any philosophy, don't ya think? However, logic can be employed to discredit many philosophies, such as empiricism and materialism. Without a doubt, that makes the naturalist scientist decidedly unscientific, now doesn't it professor.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post! Hugs!

[f.Christian]

no standard fall for anything placemaker !

[exmarine]

Didn't like that answer did you Ex? Too bad, because it's the truth, you don't want to "waste your time, because you can't argue with what I just said.

I know one thing. I can certainly defeat you in almost any debate, so if I'm a buffoon, what does that make you Chief?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

If you can pull it off, homeschool your kids. They'll be a lot better off.

[js1138]

I've seen 'em all, but haven't read 'em all. I have my list of those who almost certainly must be ignored and those whom I disagree with but read. Then there are the flame wars and discussions of Biblical translations, which I scan briefly for something interesting. Generally I can go through 200 posts in ten minutes or less, pausing only for those that have something new to say.

[MitchellC]

The philosophy of science came after science, not before it.

Doesn't "science" really just boil down to human observation/knowledge of phenomena? If so, how can it ever be detached from philosophy? If not, are you defining "science" as the actual phenomena itself, instead of its observation/etc.?

[f.Christian]

your significant lucky other jealous placemaker !

[Right Wing Professor]

You did admit that your science was embedded with philosophy (i.e. Popper).

When will you stop simply making up stuff and putting it in other people's mouths? I said no such thing, nor nothing like it. If you'd read Popper (and considering you're so opinionated on philosophy and science, don't you find it a bit odd you haven't?), you would realize that Popper approached the philosophy of science by looking at the science of men like Einstein and trying to figure out what its characteristics were. He did not make the supremely arrogant assumption that Einstein must be doing science according to some prescription created by a philosopher.

[f.Christian]

anarchist loon whack (( evo )) science placemaker !

[Right Wing Professor]

Doesn't "science" really just boil down to human observation/knowledge of phenomena? If so, how can it ever be detached from philosophy

When you were 9 months old, and noticed that when you cried, your mother appeared almost immediately, what was the philosophical basis of your actions?

[exmarine]

Keep squirming.

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome!

Because the threads can drift into so many sidebars all going on at the same time, I'm thinking about making it a personal habit to conclude a discussion, when we are at an impasse, by posting both views and leaving it up to the Lurkers to decide.

It'll take a little work and self-discipline, but I think the Lurkers will appreciate it.

Thank you so much for the great discussion!

[f.Christian]

philosophy of science came after evolution placemaker ?

[f.Christian]

lost broken code ring placemaker !