To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 9263
9262  |  9264
Subject: 
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:54:56 GMT
Viewed: 
545 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
Doesn't science involve repeatable and verifiable "lab tests"?
Isn't studying fossils and putting forth a theory based upon those
fossils something more within the field of archeology than science?

You pretty much proved with the above statement that you truly DON'T grok
science at all.  Think about it for a while.

Well, I wonder a bit about this-- is 1900's American History a science?
Sure, but we don't often think of it as such. The only reason we tend to
think of archeology as a 'science' or biology as a 'science' is that they're
more based off of repeatable 'lab tests' etc. rather than personal
experience and hearsay evidence (written, photographed, spoken or otherwise)

   No way!  20th-century American history, or any history, isn't a
   science.  (I can say this quite confidently.)  Science is about
   objective measurement and conclusion; history, while often grouped
   with the "social sciences," is a member of the family of humanities,
   and as such is a liberal art.  History is entirely about interpret-
   ation; there is no such thing as an objective fact in history,
   only prevailing interpretations based on the values and understandings
   of the historian, who may or may not be aware of her/his own internal
   biases and preconceptions.  (In actual fact, science isn't really that
   objective either, above the level of statistics.  And social sciences
   like anthropology or sociology?  Read Bourdieu and see if you still
   think *those* are sciences in the objectivist sense of the word.)

   Archaeology is based on repeatable lab tests?  I don't know where
   you're doing your archaeology, but only the tools for verification
   are found in labs. Much of the knowledge is gained by study and
   inference of the unreproducible.  Kind of like history, really.
   So claiming that history is a science also doesn't fully grok
   the concept.  ;)

As for what Steve said, I wouldn't be so quick to jump down his throat about
it-- I expect it was intended to mean something rather different. I won't be
so quick to say he doesn't understand science (where the heck did 'grok'
come from?)

   Oooh!  I used to know, and now I can't remember.  I'm pretty
   sure it's from Heinlein originally...yeah, there it is, a grok
   site:

   http://w3.one.net/~wap/wapGrok.html

but on that note, where would archeology be without repeatable
lab tests proving radioactive carbon dating, sedimentary compositions, etc.?
Probably not very far along...

   It didn't have much in the way of those tools before 1920.  So
   if you want to know roughly where it would be, look back.

In other words, archeology (in its present
form) IS based on 'science', as far as science being measured in 'lab
tests'.

   I think this is tenuous, but inasmuch as science is used to
   substantiate and enhance the body of evidence, yes.  But the
   core assertions of archaeology are still somewhere in the nether
   realm between science and the humanities--as with all fields
   that deal with human behaviour and human civilization.

But really science is anything that examines evidence according to
the scientific method. Certainly the different branches of science (biology
and archeology) aren't the same, but in order to be sciences, they must at
least acknowledge the evidence that the other field produces (or examines)
and not contradict with it. And as such, the many 'sciences' intertwine into
a more encompassing 'science'...

   Perhaps.  That view has been unravelling somewhat in the last
   two decades, partially in response to postmodernists (yuck) and
   partially in response to the realisation that we're really more
   subjective than we thought.  (Come to think of it, it may be the
   PMs who hammered this into us at first in the 1960s.)  It's not
   readily visible to those at the heart of the scientific establish-
   ment that this has been happening, but to those of us on the edges,
   or in my case with one foot in each world (the history of science and
   technology will make one schizophrenic), it's all too obvious.
   In some fields, such as chemistry, toxicology, nuclear medicine, rocket
   science--remember to convert those thrust figures!--among others,
   the effects of relativism have been negligible.  I suppose we need
   a "what is Science" FAQ around here...

   Anyways, just my two cents.

   best

   LFB.



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
 
(...) Hm, let's see: Gerald Ford was a president of the U.S. Is this an objective historical fact or not? Am I missing something? Arnold (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
 
(...) Oh? Prove Clinton used to be president of the US. Can you? We're talking 100% prove. However, like science, you can show that it's ridiculously likely that he WAS president. How? Analysis of evidence. We read the papers, we ask people, we do (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
 
(...) Well, I wonder a bit about this-- is 1900's American History a science? Sure, but we don't often think of it as such. The only reason we tend to think of archeology as a 'science' or biology as a 'science' is that they're more based off of (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

95 Messages in This Thread:





































Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR