An educational angle we all could live with? (Philosophy of Science)

Ok, Ill try again since Adminnemooseus abruptly closed the thread I posted this in.In a nutshell, there is a middle ground which science and religion overlap on: philosophy. This is the key to a long-term solution.There are at least two balanced ways we could do this. We could do it in a high-school science class or we could do it in a high-school philosophy class. Preferably both.If in a required science class, we could have one or two weeks out of one semester for the students to learn about the different aspects/history of the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science - Wikipedia. In particular teleology.During this period, students could conduct simple thought and/or lab experiments designed to demonstrate exactly when and how different philosophical approaches to science influence the nature of the scientific theory...and how different approaches can lead to different philosophical interpretations. This is, after all, what this whole mess is about.This is when the concerns of Darwin critics can be addressed...without it being ABOUT "religion vs. science"...but rather it would be about the philosophical approach Darwin took...and without pointless back-and-forth bickering about the details of this fact or that fact.If this is done in a required philosophy class instead, then all they need to do is the exact same thing but maybe toss in a field trip down to the lab.Even better would be a separate class devoted to the philosophy of science.Mankind could use a dose of philosophy in any event.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-15-2005 12:36 AM {Added link to closure message of other topic. Also added the "(Philosophy of Science)" part to the topic title. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-15-2005 01:44 PM

Wow, excellent responces so far, thank you everyone Ill work my way down.

quote:

---

you make it sound like science=evolution=darwin.

---

Well, put it that way, I guess what I'm saying is science + philosophical naturalism = Darwinism. By the same token, I would say that science + teleology = ID.

quote:

---

I expect that your approach would produce a lot of philosophers who know little about science and a lot of scientists who know little about philosophy (which is pretty similar to the situation that we have now)

---

Initially it would require alot of cooperation between the science and philosophy departments...but everyone would win in the end. And there are probably alot of out-of-work philosophers who would love the opportunity

quote:

---

As far as I understand, he was a naturalist who proposed a strictly scientific, empiric theory.

---

Yes but in practical, everyday terms a strickly naturalist approach produces a strickly naturalist philosophical truth in the end. This philosophical truth (Darwinism) then claims to have the weight of objective science behind it...thus eliminating any reasonable, emperical, scientific, socially acceptable basis for a non-materialist philosophy to base a worldview on.

quote:

---

What methodology is the most productive and useful in understanding natural phenomena?

---

There is only one way to find out. Science has come along way, it is illogical to limit it for so long.

quote:

---

For a couple of centuries at least, methodological natrualism has been the presiding methodology of science, and we have seen an incredible pace of advancement in understanding and application of knowledge.

---

Science has come along way over the last couple of centuries. But is all of that exclusively due to naturalism? Teleolgists deserve a great deal of credit, it seems.

quote:

---

Can you explain how not adhering to methodological naturalism will benefit inquiry and/or not hinder it?

---

The fear that ID, if let under the umbrella of science, would harm science is a scare tactic. The Darwinian leadership knows that examining a teleological approach could undermine Darwinism, which would in turn harm their anti-religion agenda.The distinction between the different approaches only becomes plain when dealing with origin questions.It would benefit science because it would spur competition. Competition between Darwin interpretations of evidence, and ID interpretations of evidence. Each would strive to make solid contributions, and who knows what advances would result. Monopoly = bad, competition = good. Let them try to falsify each other. Without one, the other is unable to be falsified and hence unscientific anyway. Yin and Yang.

quote:

---

I would not be adverse to a class on philosopy of science and logic of rational thought. They might be able to spend a week on ID.

---

Ill be first in line! This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-15-2005 09:48 PM

Lets say you are a high-school senior with a semester of science ahead of you.Would it harm you to go through an introduction to the basics of philosophy of science?I think that the biggest reason religion has a problem with Darwinism is that the science classes do a piss-poor job of explaining the philosophical and social implications of Darwinism, and how these implications conflict with the day-to-day philosophies and social values of many people.Its almost like science is saying, "We are science. We dont care about the social, philosophical, or religious effect our theories have. Be quiet, dont think about it, and dont question us."At which point I raise my hand.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 06:01 PM

quote:

---

What conflict? That people still believe in the flat earth or that the wind blows north and south? That people still believe that somehow light traveled for millions of light years in only 6 thousand years?

---

Uh-huh. Y'know, I dont believe in a flat earth and I dont believe in Darwinism either. Your mundane, shallow thinking reeks of regurgitated media spin.

quote:

---

What do you recommend? Torture chambers for scientists that disagree with preestablished doctrines?

---

Did you skip my post, or what? I recommened that they discuss the philosophical and social implications of Darwinism. Comprende?

quote:

---

Science is about progress and exploration of the unknown, not chasing after fairy tales while turning a blind eye to obvious evidence, or the lack thereof.

---

Translation: Science is about confirming your narrow philosophy and worldview. Screw everyone else.I had hoped this thread would be about compromise. If you want to pick a fight, there are plenty of other threads.Sorry, a little cranky today.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 08:07 PM

quote:

---

Your comment about "confirming your narrow philosophy and worldview" is misused. You think that we are wrong b/c science operates on narrow principles. That is actually the foundation of any field. Once you go outside the narrow principles of your field, you are no longer talking about science, religion, music, etc. You seem to want to include so much into science that it would no longer be science. That is exactly what will happen when ID is pushed into biology. (I believe you can find many discussions on why ID is not science elsewhere on this site.)

---

I guess I disagree. ID is science in its own right, its just not mainstream. And the definition of mainstream is too narrow, custom designed to protect the status quo.Mainstream science looks all the way back...and everything is accidental says science. No room anywhere for another interpretation of the evidence, not just biology. Im sorry, but no matter how you slice it, thats narrow.The big bang, the formation of the Earth, and of course, abiogenesis and then ToE. Its a package deal...no designer allowed...and the name of the package is ??? Secularism? Naturalism? Atheism? Darwinism?I guess 'Darwinism', to me, is someone who takes the 'package deal' and then fights to keep criticisms of ToE out of school, and ID out of science. A Darwinist, to me, accepts whatever mainstream science tells them about life, the universe, and everything.

quote:

---

According to Richard Dawkins the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. Moreover, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986

---

Are Richard Dawkins claims within the realm of evolutionary science? Seems to me he is talking about design. And religion.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-17-2005 04:44 AMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-17-2005 04:47 AM

quote:

---

Are you fearful of something? I am not trying to be rude, but you sound afraid. Do you think that if evolution is right that your faith is null and void?

---

I'm glad you asked that. Yes, I am afraid for the distant future of the Human race. I'm afraid for the long term diversity of our cultures, religions, traditions, and philosophies.Science is slowly choking the life out of non-atheistic worldviews, and it does make me furious and afraid. I want to pass my spiritual values and beliefs to my grand-children, and die with some confidence that they will be able to do the same without having to whisper them in dark corners or underground hideouts.

quote:

---

In other words, I think it is better for high/middle school students to take a leap of faith about the matter before being expected to know the why's and the how's.

​

Make sense?

---

Yes, it does. Perhaps schools could create their own optional summer courses, or workshops, or video presentations that parents could provide their kids with using vouchers or something.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-17-2005 07:26 PM

quote:

---

On another note, I think that the underlying philosophy behind the scientific method should be taught - ie, the methodology, etc. The schools do a crappy job of that as of yet, it should be taught in the first few weeks of every science class. But why on earth would ID be dragged into it?

---

Because ID is a variation of the underlying philosophy behind the scientific method.

quote:

---

But science WAS limited for a long time.

​

Remember what happened to Galileo?

---

I find it ironic that you would mention Galileo. I would like to draw your attention to this:Page not found - Boundless

quote:

---

The people in our age who truly bear the closest resemblance to Galileo's opponents are those who defend Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution in spite of the growing accumulation of evidence that suggests that evolution is, biochemically speaking, impossible. Those who most resemble Galileo in this current controversy have names such as Behe, Denton and Ross. Expect the resemblance to grow more obvious over time.

---

quote:

---

Well, that's easy. MN wins, hands down.

​

ID doesn't make any testable predictions, but Evolutionary Biology certainly does, and has, for 150 years. And nearly all of them have been borne out.

---

Well, then what are you so afraid of? Let the 'new kid on the block' try to show his stuff. MN is tough, it can take it.

quote:

---

Nobody is stopping the ID folks from doing science but them.

​

Go ahead, test your predictions and see what happens.

---

Well, Ill go ahead and tell the scientific community to let ID join the science club, since only official club members can be taken seriously enough to have their predictions tested.Cause if they arent 'members' then their predictions are rejected as 'pseudo-science', right? Why would science bother testing that?So, lets mail the ID people their 'super-secret mainstream science community decoder rings' and membership number right away, and then we will get down to business once everyone is in the clubhouse.Do you see my point?

quote:

---

The Theory of Evolution is quite falsifiable all on it's own.

---

Sure would be nice is science fessed up and gave people a few good, solid ways to do this. How about an encyclopedia of ways to falsify it? Or how about you start a field of science whose job it is to falsify it? Yeah! Show us all how brave Darwinists are!

quote:

---

However, the ball is in the ID court. When they can find their racquet and give it a lobe over the net they might be taken a bit seriously.

​

You can't expected to be taken seriously if you can't play the rough, tough game that the real scientists play.

---

Well, thats fine, but how about if science quits excommunicating heretics who try to do the ID work in the meantime.If people werent so scared for thier career and reputation...but mainstream science intimidates them into silence. Follow the program or face the wrath of the high priests of Darwin!This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-18-2005 02:34 AMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-18-2005 02:36 AM

quote:

---

I can see you haven't done your homework, or are just fond of using loaded terms like "Accidental" - evolution isn't 100% random.

---

Well, then perhaps you can tell me what science meant by this:

quote:

---

the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. - Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986

---

quote:

---

"..no designer allowed.."
It's more like "no designer needed - please apply to the theology department".

---

Same difference.

Thank you Dr, very informative.Does this method apply to all fields, such as historical sciences, or quantum theory? Are there fields of science where the standard method doesnt apply? Wouldnt it be possible to use a different method for Origin sciences, one that doesnt rule out design a priori? If it looks designed, should we really ignore that implication?It was Kansas State University biologist Scott Todd who said that even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.Obviously, then, naturalism is not a deduction from experimental observations but a defining philosophy, right? Who knows how much has been excluded over the years from many different fields of science all in the name of the scientific method.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-18-2005 06:14 AM

quote:

---

[...] but intelligent design itself does not neccessarily require supernatural intervention.

---

Can I quote you on that?

quote:

---

I may be wrong, but I don't think is history is a science, but an art (one of the humanities): I've never heard of anyone gaining a BSc in history. It certainly applies to quantum theory, so far as we can observe events at that level.

---

In a way, arent origin sciences and origin theories 'historical'? They piece together evidence and make a hunch, right?

quote:

---

Could we know a little more about Mr Todd, and the context of the quote? A link would be nice.

---

Scott C. Todd, A View from Kansas on that Evolution Debate, Nature 401.6752(September 30, 1999): 423.