|
Science and Religion-as-Art |
|
Science and Religion-as-Art Richard
H. Zander The following is an email sent to
the listserver Taxacom on January 14, 2005, in response to the two messages
subjoined. The definitions quoted below from
the Merriam-Webster dictionary all presuppose that the three (hypothesis,
theory and law) are distinct. They actually intergrade somewhat. One can also
rephrase the three as pragmatic guides to action: Hypothesis is a good guess about
processes in nature that we posit and gather facts (well documented
observations) about with the intent of demonstrating a theory. A hypothesis
is acted upon by the brave with nothing to risk. Theory is a well-supported
description of a process in nature based on lots of evidence, with little
contradictory evidence, and contrary theories based on much the same evidence
are somewhat improbable or unreasonable. A theory is acted upon with certain
care for contrary surprises and a moderate risk. Law is a theory that has no
reasonable alternative and which we do use confidently as a basis for action
even when risking much. All these are scientific in that
they deal with the facts of nature and thus our experience of the natural world.
Because I base their value on how well they perform in action given certain
risks, they do not require an acceptance of a particular "reality"
pre-action even though such undoubtedly exists. As long as we keep Science and Art
separate, things go swimmingly. Science is, in my opinion, the skeptical
pursuit of truth with a small "t", truth we act on and revise as
required by new facts; science makes us part of nature and no different from
the animals. Art is the invention or detection of Truth, things that strike
us as absolutely and incontrovertibly true no matter how contradictory or
illogical; Art makes us human. Keeping them apart is important not just
legally as in keeping religion out of science/politics and vice versa, but to
keep us complete by protecting our Science from our Art and vice versa. -----Original
Message----- From:
Susanne Schulmeister [mailto:susanne71_2000@YAHOO.DE] Sent:
Friday, January 14, 2005 8:13 AM To:
TAXACOM@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Subject:
Re: [TAXACOM] Judge orders removal of anti-evolution stickers from
textbooks in The
Merriam-Webster online dictionary states: "3
: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement synonyms HYPOTHESIS,
THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that
explains a principle operating in nature.
HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a
tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the
dinosaurs>. THEORY
implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the
theory of evolution>. LAW
implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be
invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>." http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hypothesis&x=21&y=1
5 ===== Susanne
Schulmeister --- Richard Jensen
<rjensen@SAINTMARYS.EDU> schrieb: > The
equating of hypothesis and theory, the common thread that underlies these
attempts to consign evolution to the same status as individual belief,
reflects one of the greatest failings of science education. We, as science educators, need to make sure
that we spell > out exactly what the difference between a theory and a
hypothesis is. The general public, and
too many science teachers, have been taught and/or allowed to continue to
believe that a theory is just a hypothesis. --- |
|
|