JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>In alt.education Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's,
>Bob LeChevalier wrote...
>>"Creation scientists" are not scientists. They do not practice the
>>scientific method. They also do not subject their results to peer review by
>>other scientists (who of course reject those results as being
>>non-scientific).
>>Ah, I see your limitations now. When speaking of "science" you are
>referring only to the pure physical sciences.
Nope. The biological sciences as well (and indeed the biological sciences
tend to follow the method more easily than the physical sciences. It is
rather hard to develop good scientific tests on the interior of stars, the
nature of black holes, superstring theory, and the Big Bang. Evidence tends
to be a little too dependent on the model used to develop the evidence, so it
takes a lot of multiple approaches using different models to get any
confidence that a result is valid.
Note, since you seem NOT well-educated on the subject, that I will correct
you in advance on one of the most egregious errors made by creationists:
evolutionary theory does NOT include the question of the origin of life. The
question of the origin of life most commonly confused with evolution is a
hypothesis called "abiogenesis". The hypothesis of abiogenesis is NOT part
of the theory of evolution, and it is not taught as scientific fact, though
there is considerable circumstantial evidence supporting it..
>Science by definition is "knowledge reduced to a system".
That is NOT the modern definition of science. Your science class in school
does NOT study "knowledge reduced to a system", which includes virtually
every academic subject.
The relevant question is "what should be taught in a science classroom"? The
answer is "science" as defined by scientists. Which excludes creationism.
>Social scientists and
>psycologists shrinks and wizards perform what some call "science"
>also.
If they do not follow the scientific method, then the use of the word
"science" is inappropriate. And in fact, social scientists DO attempt to
follow the scientific method, but the difficulties in meeting the standards
of science are usually too high to get consistently repeatable, controlled
results.
>Psychology for example, is defined as the science of the mind in
>modern day terminology, but actually this mind science when
>performed by wizards is actually an atempt to peer into the "Psyche"
>A.K.A the souls of men.
"Wizards"? The only "wizards" I know of are exceptionally skilled computer
programmers and fictional characters in works of fantasy. Neither seem
particularly interested in souls.
lojbab
