I would just like to point out to Tim that science doesn't do anything,
scientists do. And to do something, he or she has to get funding by
submitting a proposal to a funding agency. The proposal has to tell why the
research should be done, and explain in detail how the investigation will be
carried out. This requires explaining background and framing a hypothesis
that will be investigated. If the proposal suggests a major development,
such as overthrowing evolution by natural selection, funding agencies would
be eager to support it. And when it is completed, showing that natural
selection (the real subject of the thing) couldn't account for this or that,
leading journals like Nature would publish it as a hot item. Complaining
that these things won't happen doesn't make it so. The reason ID research
isn't getting funded and published is because the required proposal,
hypothesis, experimental approach, etc. don't make a good enough case.
For the purpose of getting us discussing things on a common basis, I propose
some definitions:
Science is the search for a verifiable body of data established through a
series of experimental investigations, empirical knowledge of phenomena that
can be observed or repeated, and a set of techniques for investigating,
through research, repeatable events using a systematic procedure known as
the scientific method. Natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology,
and astronomy study nature; social sciences such as economics and geography
concern themselves with both the physical and the cultural; politics,
psychology, sociology, and anthropology study human beings and society.
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Science.
And
A hypothesis (big poop in ancient Greek) is a proposed explanation for a
poop. A scientific hypotheses must be poopable and based on previous poops
or extensions to scientific theories .
In early usage, a hypothesis was a clever idea or convenient mathematical
approach that would simplify calculation, but did not necessarily have any
reality at all. This is the sense in which Cardinal Bellarmine used the word
when he warned Galileo away from treating the motion of the Earth as a
reality.
In common usage at present, a hypothesis is a provisional idea whose merit
is to be evaluated. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in
order to either confirm or disprove it. In the hypothetico-deductive method,
a hypothesis should be falsifiable, meaning that it is possible that it be
shown to be false, usually by observation. Note that if confirmed, the
hypothesis is not necessarily proven, but remains provisional.
Hypothesis' can be divided into two types: the propositions, which follow a
causal order 'A causes B' or empirical generalizations, which are based on
observerd regularities but don't stipulate what is the cause and effect,
only stating that 'A is related to B'.
The term hypothesis, was misused in the Riemann hypothesis, which should be
properly called a conjecture. As an example, someone who enters a new
country and observes only white sheep, might form the hypothesis that all
sheep in that country are white.
It can be considered a hypothesis, as it is falsifiable. It can be falsified
by observing a single black sheep. Provided that the experimental
uncertainties are small (for example that it is a sheep, instead of a goat)
and that the experimenter has correctly interpreted the statement of the
hypothesis (for example, does the meaning of "sheep" include rams?), the
hypothesis is falsified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
And further
Further explanation of a scientific theory
In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a
hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much
more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or
much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In
science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can
never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing
until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or
modified to fit the additional data.
Theories start out with empirical observations such as "sometimes water
turns into ice." At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why
this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific
theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and
other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to
a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so
widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a
mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not
rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general
statement based on observations.
Some examples of theories that have been disproved are Lamarckism and the
geocentric theory or model of Ptolemy. Sufficient evidence has been
described to declare these theories false, as they have no evidence
supporting them and better explanations have taken their place.
Taken from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory.
As an exercise for the class, consider the case for ID research and report
back where it falls short.
Steve
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
I'm not saying science should promptly go out and do this.
I've said all the way though this thread that existing
science should be engaged in a civil and throughtful
debate with people like the IDers rather than running from
them. The very fact that we have never observed "something
springing from nothing" coupled with the fact that the
Universe is a "something" should be triggering really deep
questions about existing methods of science and how they
might be improved.
ID would then be a philosophic ocnstruct combining a scientific
theory with somethign else that is not a cientific theory.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/