Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:54:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
458 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
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
