03-30-2006, 12:42 PM
Quote: Groot GoudaMar 29 2006, 01:58 AM Quote: This is only one form of science, if the most generally accepted today. There are other, less empirical forms, as well as purely theoretical forms which are very hard to prove (Theory of Relativity?)[/quote]
Theory of Relativity has been "proven" by experiments. If you can't prove or falsify it, it's not science, and no reason to protect it on a UN level. [/quote]
I just think you're looking at a very narrow part of science; that which is most accepted in today's mainstream, yes, but narrow nonetheless. If you look at the history of science, empiricism and falsification are fairly new ways of proving things (and not universally accepted). I understand your point here, but I just don't think falsification is the only way to show something is science. Of course, I don't have a good definition of what else classifies as science...
[/quote]
If new ways to conduct science are discovered, we'll see about that then and there. What I care about is that conducting science is protected, and if people come up with a better definition, it's in. If not, I'll leave it as it is.
Quote: What about those cases where something isn't aimed at being damaging, but its damaging effects will be greater than its useful ones? Something like genetically modified food that could reasonably be expected to kill other plants along the way, or destroy pest populations that are integral parts of the ecosystem.... [/quote]
You don't know until you've researched. That's why we need to protect science
Quote: Quote: The difference between evolution and ID is that evolution is based on theories, observations, and that can all be reproduced and falsified by other scientists.[/quote]
This is debatable...[/quote]
That's why it's science! If it isn't debatable, there's no change, no progress.
Quote: I haven't seen any scientist able to reproduce evolution except with such things as algorithms, and the other evidence can be classified as circumstantial. Evolution as it stands is hard to falsify because of the way the theory is structured, and there is not complete evidence of all the necessary links yet. I agree that ID cannot be falsified either, but under your criteria, I don't think evolution is a science, either.[/quote]
Evolution is science. Numerous observations have been made, a theory has been constructed, and for 150 years things have been thrown at it. The theory is still in place, modified at places perhaps to accomodate new observations, new insights, but it's still the best explanation science can give for what happens.
If great new insights come along, it can change. If observations are made that don't match the theory, it can be changed. So it's a great example of science. It can be falsified, it just hasn't been done yet.
With ID, we can be sure that it can never be falsified, that whatever observation is done, the basic idea that there's a designer will stay. It takes a result and searches for an explanation, instead of observing and finding an explanation. That's a fundamental difference.
And remember that evolution is still a theory. That's how science works. It isn't true. Science is prepared to change its opinion with new facts, and always tries to explain what happens with current knowledge. Some might treat it as a fundamental truth, but that's not science. We'll probably never find The Truth. Or, as Terry Pratchett said: "It's very hard to explain quantum in a language invented to tell other monkeys where to find ripe fruit."
Theory of Relativity has been "proven" by experiments. If you can't prove or falsify it, it's not science, and no reason to protect it on a UN level. [/quote]
I just think you're looking at a very narrow part of science; that which is most accepted in today's mainstream, yes, but narrow nonetheless. If you look at the history of science, empiricism and falsification are fairly new ways of proving things (and not universally accepted). I understand your point here, but I just don't think falsification is the only way to show something is science. Of course, I don't have a good definition of what else classifies as science...
[/quote]If new ways to conduct science are discovered, we'll see about that then and there. What I care about is that conducting science is protected, and if people come up with a better definition, it's in. If not, I'll leave it as it is.
Quote: What about those cases where something isn't aimed at being damaging, but its damaging effects will be greater than its useful ones? Something like genetically modified food that could reasonably be expected to kill other plants along the way, or destroy pest populations that are integral parts of the ecosystem.... [/quote]
You don't know until you've researched. That's why we need to protect science
Quote: Quote: The difference between evolution and ID is that evolution is based on theories, observations, and that can all be reproduced and falsified by other scientists.[/quote]
This is debatable...[/quote]
That's why it's science! If it isn't debatable, there's no change, no progress.
Quote: I haven't seen any scientist able to reproduce evolution except with such things as algorithms, and the other evidence can be classified as circumstantial. Evolution as it stands is hard to falsify because of the way the theory is structured, and there is not complete evidence of all the necessary links yet. I agree that ID cannot be falsified either, but under your criteria, I don't think evolution is a science, either.[/quote]
Evolution is science. Numerous observations have been made, a theory has been constructed, and for 150 years things have been thrown at it. The theory is still in place, modified at places perhaps to accomodate new observations, new insights, but it's still the best explanation science can give for what happens.
If great new insights come along, it can change. If observations are made that don't match the theory, it can be changed. So it's a great example of science. It can be falsified, it just hasn't been done yet.
With ID, we can be sure that it can never be falsified, that whatever observation is done, the basic idea that there's a designer will stay. It takes a result and searches for an explanation, instead of observing and finding an explanation. That's a fundamental difference.
And remember that evolution is still a theory. That's how science works. It isn't true. Science is prepared to change its opinion with new facts, and always tries to explain what happens with current knowledge. Some might treat it as a fundamental truth, but that's not science. We'll probably never find The Truth. Or, as Terry Pratchett said: "It's very hard to explain quantum in a language invented to tell other monkeys where to find ripe fruit."